“In the ruthless pursuit of sexual goals, for example, men and women derogate their rivals, deceive members of the opposite sex, and even subvert their own mates.” – David Buss in The Evolution of Desire (p. 5)
I came to this little niche of the blogosphere through Roissy. Being in my mid-twenties, Roissy’s writings hit home and explained a lot of the confusion and rationalized a lot of the anger I had built up inside. I felt that men were getting the short end of the stick in the culture wars and I enjoyed Roissy’s site because it was the closest thing I had read to male empowerment.
But with all of his talk about Game, I soon realized that Game was an affront to some MRA agendas. I place MRAs into two broad categories - those who dislike feminism and its results and those who dislike women because they are women. The latter being misogynists. I walk on thin ice when I toss that word around, I know, but if I’m to believe that there’s a such thing as misandry (I do) then I have to believe that its antithesis exists as well. Anti-feminist MRAs - with whom I tend to align – seem more amenable to Game. Misogynistic MRAs tend to shame men who compete for women; they play True Scotsman with Gamers’ masculinity. They argue that we are capitulating to them, pedestalizing them too much, or unable to harness our animal desire for the greater good when we utilize Game.
Procurement of opportunities with women is a two-front war. The first group of MRAs, the ones that tend to embrace Game, realize that we have to compete against other men and against women’s bitch shields; other types of MRAs feel that competing against the “brotherhood” decreases the overall power of men.
It’s true that Gamers and strict MRAs have competing agendas. I’ve argued in the past that Game is a Ponzi scheme. Men do well with women by stepping on the heads of other men. Given that someone has to occupy the lower rungs of the social hierarchy and that men don’t want to choose their women from the teeming cesspools of slutdom, one man’s gain is another man’s loss. Game merely serves to jumble men’s positions on the ladder rather than build a bigger ladder. This outcome doesn’t put men’s advocacy in the forefront and it doesn’t do anything to improve our position relative to women.
But we still harbor primal instincts. Men are compelled to compete for women against other men. In Game Theory, two agents face the “Prisoner’s Dilemma” when neither agent knows the actions or intentions of the other agent.
The Prisoner’s Dilemma of Game
| Cooperate | Game (Betray) | |
| Cooperate | Both alone with no chance to fulfill biological imperative | (Alone + failure relative to other man, Relations) |
| Game (Betray) | (Relations, Alone + failure relative to other man) | Both used as tools by the woman but give themselves an “E” for effort |
In these games, the dominant strategy for each player is to act (Game, or at least try) regardless of what the other player does. Given that men have some sort of natural urge to act towards a goal that involves women, it is in our best interest to use Game or any other tool necessary to best our male opponents. If we merely step with the same level of Game, resources, or enthusiasm we reach the gloomiest outcome of the Prisoner’s Dilemma; both players end up worse off than if neither would have acted at all. The major difference in this Game theory of Game is that – unlike the pure Prisoner’s Dilemma – men are compelled to do something by their natural instincts. The man who Games more effectively, or Games at all, will win out while the man who ”cooperates” loses.
(In my analysis I assume that a man who tries to get a woman but fails still feels better than a man who doesn’t try at all; that’s my personal experience at least.)
There are other Game theory models that would better fit seduction Game, but the conclusion is still the same: men want to act, and they’d better act as quickly and as effectively as possible in order to beat out other men. This natural tendency, exhibited in every other organism the planet, cannot be muted in men. Muting it for the sake of an artificially constructed brotherhood employs strategies similar to feminists in their quest for cultural marxism.
Another way to look at this dilemma is to picture a cartel. Some MRAs would like to see collusion among men in the fight against entitled women. I argue that this wouldn’t work. As with every cartel, the first guy to break the contract reaps the biggest reward. Men will undercut the tacit agreement with other men; this leads to a game theory outcome of tit-for-tat and constant vigilance against other men. Unfortunately, it’s a dilemma we can’t escape.
So Game isn’t a tide that lifts all boats at least with regards to Game as used for procuring new dating interests. Game’s real appeal and effectiveness lies in closed systems – committed relationships. In an open system where there are no strong pairings but only loose couplings involving intricate webs of sexual activity, men as a whole suffer a disadvantage. Since women always have more options and greater ability to choose than men, their value is greater in the midst of a sexual free-for-all. As stated earlier, men will compete in a race to the bottom for the attention and sexual dalliances of women. No matter the behavior of the woman, she can be an entitled daddy’s girl or a felon, if a man finds her attractive and thinks he can get her, he’ll undercut other men to do so. The sorry state for men is a result of men having to fight a two-front war. In relationships, men usually only have to fight a frontal female attack (if you’re fighting a two-front war in this closed system, you might as well go kamikaze) and can use the singular tool of Game against their lone “enemy” in order to capitalize on their position atop the pyramid.
As I mentioned above, I was drawn to the MRA/Game movement because I wanted to see a redress of the current sorry state men face. After observing the different dichotomies and learning more about Game and human behavior, I’ve realized that our plight arises from the Sexual Revolution that undermined relationships for the sake of easy-as-pie pie. Relationships are marginally less attractive, either because they aren’t cool or because they are stifling, thus leaving many more men competing against fellow men and women than before. This also results in fewer relationships in which Game can be effectively used for all men in the same situation. As a further impediment to men’s fulfillment, the situations in which men do have the ability to apply the tool of Game are distorted by gynocentric family law.
To buy into the notion that we should mute our natural inclination to Game or seduce women through whatever tools we have - so as to not undercut a men’s movement – is absurd. Game and strict men’s rights advocacy are at odds with each other. Feminists want to ignore our human nature by constructing a new social paradigm; MRAs who want men to sing kumbaya together are doing the same thing. Instead, men face a more structural foe: feminism and liberalism. The twins have caused a social shift that any amount of cooperation between men on the Game front will correct. In “free market” situations – in groups of single men and women – a man has a duty to Game as hard as he can to procure the woman he desires. In doing so he is charging hard into both enemy lines; one man will lose. Every man should Game in their relationships; it is one of the few opportunities for men to improve their station in life without the collateral damage of open system Game.
Subscribe to The Spearhead Newsletter for a free copy of the Book of Zed
{ 143 comments… read them below or add one }
There are so many problems with this article I am not entirely sure where to start… to paraphrase Pauli, it’s not right, and it’s not even wrong!
In short:
- You can’t really think of Game in the context of a Prisoner’s Dilemma without understanding that the key facet of the Prisoner’s Dilemma is that the options are artificially limited and are proscribed by an outside force; the game works because it is a one-off system. When you have a chance to either modify the rules of the game, or collude in advance to game the system, the outcomes of the prisoner’s dilemma are not necessarily the same. To that end, the metaphor only works if we assume that no “men’s movement”, reframing of the current cultural viewpoint, or such are possible…
Given that there exist other cultures that don’t buy into our behaviors, I think this is likely to be false.
2 – As to the cartel metaphor, it depends on the cartel. The first person to break ranks reaps the greatest reward… unless the reward for breaking ranks is a round, point-blank execution style, to the cranium for breaking ranks.
3 – I think you take too narrow a view of MRA’s; in my experience, neatly putting people into a couple of camps is not just a generalization, but rather, an over-broad generalization that does injustice to the group. In short, there’s a lot of people who think a lot of things, to varying degrees, within MRA movements, and there are uniform goals that most of them agree upon (such as dealing with shit like false rape accusations and rigged family courts).
Major division is not helpful until those basic points are at least addressed; this is the first article on this site I have seen that I do not think belongs here. I could go on, but I think my point is clear.
“To buy into the notion that we should mute our natural inclination to Game or seduce women through whatever tools we have – so as to not undercut a men’s movement – is absurd.”
Is it too absurd to suggest that we exercise discretion in choosing which women we Game or seduce? What happens in your system when you throw in a new rule/strategy, “Thow shalt not fuck another man’s woman.”?
Reinholt:
I was prepared for a negative response to this piece. I’m sure some will tell me I’m naive or stupid or make similar claims that this piece or this thinking doesn’t belong on this site, but the fact is that men’s natural inclination is to compete against other men. Kumbaya is a dream. Echo chambers be damned.
I stated that a simple Prisoner’s Dilemma isn’t the perfect model for the interaction of Game in society, but it implies the same outcome: men must compete against other men in order to procure dates and mates.
And a men’s movement still pits men competing against other men for women. That’s why I say that our problem is structural; a men’s movement against the encroachment of feminism (custody laws etc and rampant misandry in society) is our only hope. Using Game to redress the imbalance will not lift the tide of mens’ cause.
As far as generalizations, there are plenty of men that hate women just because they are women, just as there are plenty of women who hate men for being men. Its an inescapable reality.
My dog cannot talk, my dog cannot drive, and my dog can’t pay my taxes. He does a lot of things rather well.
I know that if I put our financial resources in his paws, he’d buy as much meat as possible and let it rot over the course of a week, making us both sick.
My dog is not fit to lead, but does that mean I hate my dog? No. I just know he doesn’t have a place as head of the household.
I shouldn’t have to explain what I’m getting at
I think you’re right – even though I wish you weren’t.
Still, there’s something else. Just as OPEC can push the price so high, folks start investigating nuclear power and the like, so feminine insanity can cut their own throat. At one end of the scale there’s MGTOW and Japanese Herbivores, at the other Roissyesque hit’n'run from men who’ll still give ‘er one, but won’t give a toss if she drops dead the day after.
First things first… I don’t regard myself as an MRA. I know that, from among the MRAs, I am most likely to meet the types of men that I would be proud to have as friends – men who are not afraid to make a stand for what they believe in. But no, I’m definitely no MRA. Here are my reasons:
1) What to learn from feminists. “Mainstream” MRAs make the mistake of learning and implementing exactly the same sexism that feminism has imposed, only reversing the roles. I also like to learn from feminists. But where I regard feminism as an example of what NOT to be, “mainstream” MRAs regard feminism as an ideal to emulate, so long as the roles are switched. Playing pay-back is no solution.
2) Rheinholt has it right. A keyword is culture. The prisoner’s dilemma is a reductionist nonsense that ignores culture.
3) Feminists are pigs. There is nothing to learn from them except how NOT to be. Now if I was your gamer-type or other “traditional” MRA, I would be reluctant to call feminists pigs for a number of reasons, but the foremost reason is that I am persisting with the us-versus-them dynamic that has no solution. If I am playing their game, then how on earth can I insist that what I have to offer is any different to what feminists have rammed down our throats? But because I am truly equalitarian, because I truly don’t care about men’s rights exclusively or the rights of knuckleheads like Joe Biden just because he is male, because I truly care about ALL people’s rights, across the board, regardless of gender, I can insist that feminists are pigs and not be concerned that anyone might try to tar me with the charge of sexism. They can try, but anyone who tries to assert that I am a sexist is only proving their own sexism. Why should I fight for Joe Biden’s rights, or the rights of any assortment of snivelling, chivalrous gollum, just because they are male? They can go fuck ‘emselves. I’d rather kick them in the balls, with my steel-cap boots on, so hard that they’ll be mistaking their testicles for tonsils. I am the true equalitarian. Feminists are not and nor are “traditional” or gamer MRAs marching to the beat that was put in place by feminists.
I say that we need to properly identify the enemy. No-one is a friend solely because they are male. Those MRAs who emulate the tactics of feminists have failed to recognize who the real enemy is. The enemy is not women. The enemy is feminism, a political ideology comprised equally of both women AND men – chivalrous men and obsequious gollums – who reap the rewards for their complicity. I am a free man. I don’t need to nurture allegiances with fools to fulfil my agenda. Let US show feminists where they went wrong.
Provocative post. I like it.
Discrediting it because it doesn’t fit perfectly into the original Prisoner’s Dilemma doesn’t seem useful.
Reinholt raises an important objection: that the Prisoner’s Dilemma insufficiently model the sexual/social marketplace. However, a crude model pushed to failure is often the important early step in a developing theory. I ask you, or others, with more expertise in Game Theory what model(s) best fit the s/s marketplace as we know it and how do your conclusions change with the more nuanced theory.
Some examples might be adding in asymmetry , multiple turns, forms of cooperation (e.g. agreements enforced thru social pressure), etc.
The goal should be to discover if there are equilibria within the market that lead to cooperation motivated by self interest. As an initial hypothesis I propose that family obligations and honor based culture in relatively lawless areas (Scottish Highlands during the 14th cent. for example) lead to “rules of men” which maximized individual utility over the long term. In other words, the outcome of Prisoners Dilemma-type matrices changes if you play many turns.
The bigger problem with using a static game here is simple:
I am saying the matrix changes over time, or at the very least, has the potential to be changed. Otherwise, once we had a certain mating paradigm, it would never shift, and only individuals would be able to take actions.
This is one of the most misunderstood portions of game theory; games are instantaneous snapshots in many cases, not long-running simulations, as time will cause them to mutate in some form, and the game you are playing at the end is not the game you are playing at the start.
My point is that we have agency and can influence the next matrix we are playing in, so to speak, and should not throw that opportunity away.
Whether or not a gamer’s strategy works depends on the culture within which an individualist is trying to implement it. There are cultures in the world where such a strategy would get laughed out the door. They’ll just tell the pest to fuck off and swat them like a fly. The reason it can even be contemplated as a legitimate strategy in the US probably rests on two, or maybe three, key factors tied in with the availability of birth control, feminism and the culture of permissiveness.
Reductionism presumes that personality is coded into the genes, and thus gamers infer their strategy’s relationship to theories in evolutionary psychology (EP) with laughably predictable references to ancient, hunter-gatherer societies wandering about on the savannah plains in the Pleistocene era (whatever). But personality is not coded into the genes. Personality is inextricably bound to culture, and that’s why an Englishman thinks and behaves differently to an American or a German or an Italian. Nothing whatsoever to do with genes or EP. That’s why in other cultures, a gamer’s strategy might just as easily be regarded as a rude, unwarranted and irritating intrusion.
The bottom line? The successful implementation of a gamer’s strategy is contingent on a number of factors, the ultimate determinant of which is always, always culture.
Er, no. Game actually does build a bigger ladder. Gamed women have more sex than they would otherwise.
That is, in fact, the fundamental point of Game, and it pretty much invalidates your thesis here.
If you are stupid enough to want a relationship, as opposed to only sex, not even your god can save you.
The only biological imperative in this age is hedonism, the rest is worthless or counterproductive.
acksiom:
“Gamed women have more sex than they would otherwise.”
which undermines our aversion to sluts, which i mentioned in the piece. on one hand we want pristine women with minimal vaginal penetrations below their belt; on the other hand we want women to give in to our seduction. how can we have both work at the same time?
Chuck, your query inherently — though tacitly — admits that my point is correct and that your thesis has been invalidated.
If you want me to answer your query, you need to explicitly admit that first. Experience has taught me not to waste my valuable time and attention on people who refuse to demonstrate even just that minimal an amount of intellectual integrity.
NYCer:
“However, a crude model pushed to failure is often the important early step in a developing theory. ”
Agreed. The qualifier I have to put out there is that men *are compelled to act*. In the Prisoner’s Dilemma, one or the other can sit idly by and not say a word. In the real world with real women, a man really, really wants to have relationships/sex with women. He has a natural urge to act. This is one limiting flaw in my simple prisoner’s dilemma, but it is game theory in rudimentary form. there are iterative games where agents learn from their mistakes and from the strategies of other players.
regardless, game theory can be applied to Game. i’ll do my research, but a game that involves agents that prefer to act, in competition with other agents who want to act, against another competitor who seeks to maximize utility against those several other actors. also throw in the argument (as put forth by Reinholt) that the overall matrix paradigm changes as the actors strategies change.
as for the matrices changing, i’m arguing that it doesn’t change *unless the structure underlying the system changes first*. if men undercut other men – and they are doomed to always do that – men will get nowhere by trying to collude. it takes an outside force to alter the landscape. Game and sexual relations are endogenous to my model whereas the social structure is exogenous. my article isn’t foolproof, but i aim to throw out a type of academic working paper that provides a workable model.
acksiom:
men’s sexual activity is compared to that of other men. just as in western society we are wealthier than at any time in history, many are still unsatisfied with their material possessions. we all seek to keep up with the joneses. a guy who was happy with 2 lifetime partners in 1960 is deemed a failure in the sexual realm in 2009.
“But where I regard feminism as an example of what NOT to be, “mainstream” MRAs regard feminism as an ideal to emulate, so long as the roles are switched. Playing pay-back is no solution.”
I’ll use whatever strategy that works. Stealing plays from the Feminist play book is not a problem. I don’t underestimate my enemy. Do you think they just stupidly stumbled onto a successfull political movement by never playing some cards right? Feminist, can be quite clever, especially since they aren’t burdened with debating logically. They manipulate emotions. Fine. We will to. And pay-back is my solution. People who don’t agree with revenge have never been wronged, or are pussies. Just stay out of my way, and we’ll be fine.
“But personality is not coded into the genes. ”
It is both in our genes and develops in relation to our environment. Anyone who debates nature versus nurture is not getting it. Nature and nurture work together. You can be genetically outgoing, a natural people person, and that genetic trait can either be encouraged, where it will be exagerated, discouraged, where it will be suppressed, or it can grow up in a neutral environment, where it will exist in its natural state.
I think you are being overly harsh on the prisoners dilema analogy. Chuck never claimed it was a perfect analogy. Its just a starting point for debate. Along those lines;
“In game theory, Nash equilibrium (named after John Forbes Nash, who proposed it) is a solution concept of a game involving two or more players, in which each player is assumed to know the equilibrium strategies of the other players, and no player has anything to gain by changing only his or her own strategy unilaterally. If each player has chosen a strategy and no player can benefit by changing his or her strategy while the other players keep theirs unchanged, then the current set of strategy choices and the corresponding payoffs constitute a Nash equilibrium.
Stated simply, Amy and Bill are in Nash equilibrium if Amy is making the best decision she can, taking into account Bill’s decision, and Bill is making the best decision he can, taking into account Amy’s decision. Likewise, a group of players is in Nash equilibrium if each one is making the best decision that he or she can, taking into account the decisions of the others. However, Nash equilibrium does not necessarily mean the best cumulative payoff for all the players involved; in many cases all the players might improve their payoffs if they could somehow agree on strategies different from the Nash equilibrium (e.g. competing businesses forming a cartel in order to increase their profits).”
“The bottom line? The successful implementation of a gamer’s strategy is contingent on a number of factors, the ultimate determinant of which is always, always culture.”
Game can be adjusted for cultures, but women everywhere like Alpha males (Confident, risk takers, successful, social). Can you name a culture where women go for Beta’s and Omegas. Don’t bring up arranged marriages, that neutralizes human personality and emotions, so doesn’t count. Thats less about cultural impact and more about societal rules and laws. We could make laws that say all women must choose a life mate by the age of 18, but thats just as unrealistic as us having arranged marraiges here.
What strategies should MRA’s use to collapse the Matriarchy?
All of them.
In unison, PUA, MGTOW, MRA, Fathers rights, etc. will create an unbearable cacophony of cultural discord. That will cause women to capitulate, and then we can discuss terms. Any problem with this soldiers. Choose the gun you want to use, just make sure you point them at Feminists, So-Cons, and PC liberal pussies who put womens rights before mens.
I think it would be a big step forwards if men did not co-operate rather than compete as far as sex is concerned. That is why I am in favour of as much prostitution and commercial sex as possible. I think we should assess our own needs more realisticly. I just think it is a sort of sexual boast to claim that we need constant sex. The only time I have wanted constant sex was when I had none at all. When it was available I needed less. So that is what I would like to see – sex being available reasonably regularly but not constantly. If that means paying for it then so be it.
What I oppose with all my vigour is monogamous marriage. If you are married then you quickly come to the realisation that you would not mind being married one day a week. The rest you would want for yourself. You also realise very quickly that just having one partner is no solution at all to a man’s sexual needs. All this propaganda bout a man’s sex life in marriage is just so much hype and deception. The point I want to make very strongly indeed is not that women become indifferent to sex once married. It is that man just looses interest in having sex with the same woman constantly. This is especially true since that woman will by then be making your life an absolute misery. Why would you want to make love to a creature that you hate.
While it’s an interesting article, it doesn’t adequately recognise that Game in itself changes the payoffs to a pareto-superior outcome:
- By raising more men above the sexworthy threshold, more men get laid and with hotter women than otherwise
- By giving women something to compete for, women improve themselves
- Men can regain the lead in relationships and thus however the women are distributed among the men, they work harder for their man
- A gamed LTR is a happier place to be than a princess-kitchen bitch LTR
- By reducing the maintence level of the women, men keep a larger share of their wallet and time to spend on their own enjoyment
I’m sure there’s plenty more upside too.
@Krauser-
Good points. Should I google “pareto-superior outcome”? It sounds important, or is it more….I’ll just google it, you’ve got my curiousity.
One question-
- A gamed LTR is a happier place to be than a princess-kitchen bitch LTR
What if I use game to maintain a kitchen-bitch lifestyle. I’m lazy and have a lot of hobbies I’d like to pursue. Housework would take, what 3 to 4 hours a day if you include cooking?
That is important.
However, it appears that it and the related theories suggest;
“Under Pareto efficiency, an outcome is more efficient if at least one person is made better off and nobody is made worse off. This seems a reasonable way to determine whether or not an outcome improves economics efficiency. However, some believe that in practice, it is almost impossible to take any social action, such as a change in economic policy, without making at least one person worse off. Even voluntary exchanges may not be Pareto improving. Under ideal conditions, voluntary exchanges are Pareto improving since individuals would not enter into them unless they were mutually beneficial. However, a voluntary exchange would not be Pareto superior if external costs (such as pollution that hurt a third party) exist, as they often do.”
Put it this way. If most people use game, those who don’t suffer worse. If everyone uses game, all game users suffer from competition, and the weaker gamers suffer.
Their is no perfect world. Someone has to be a loser for their to be a winner.
switch “their”s with “there”s
I hate the English language, although its good for poetry.
German is better for poetry because it has a more flexible sentence structure.
Interesting posts.
It is that man just looses interest in having sex with the same woman constantly. This is especially true since that woman will by then be making your life an absolute misery. Why would you want to make love to a creature that you hate.
That’s what you don’t understand, obviously: romantic love and pair-bonding. Most happily married men (yeah, even the Machos and the Gamesters) and even many unhappily married men love their women sacrificially. They don’t just like them or enjoy having them around. They nearly worship them and struggle to keep their woman’s human fallibility in perspective. Men are designed to be this way, as that love is what drives them to protect and provide for their wives and children. It is also what makes them so vulnerable, which is why the law shouldn’t allow women to leave their husbands for frivolous reasons.
If you told a man in that situation: “I’ve decided that you should be tired of your old, ugly wife. I’m going to switch her out tomorrow for a young, fresh one.” He’d stare at you as if you were off your rocker. Men have killed for less than that. Don’t speak so flippantly about things you do not understand.
*********
And remember that when I discuss marriage I’m not necessarily talking about the civil union or even the sacrament. I’m talking about the natural institution that a man and woman bestow on each other; the covenant. One man, one woman, forever.
“German is better for poetry because it has a more flexible sentence structure.”
Oh no you didn’t!! Your language sounds like Klingon. J/K
I’ve heard English is good for poetry because it has so many homonyms, so many grammatical contradictions, and also we’ve incorporated so many foreign words into our language, as well as having minority groups who invent words or find new uses for them, ie. a lot of slang. Basically, its such a mess, that there is a lot to play with. Obviously, this is a subjective argument, so no debate away in the spirit of debate.
Ignore that ‘no’ in my last sentence.
@Black and German-
Your romantic concept of love exists in something like 10% of married couples. MRI scans were used to prove this.
For most successful couples, love slowly fades into friendship, and hopefully respect.
Experience has taught me yet again not to waste my valuable time and attention on people who refuse to demonstrate even just that minimal an amount of intellectual integrity.
10% sounds really low to me.
Jesus Acksiom. Do you want Chuck to commit Hari-Kiri because you pointed out that he contradicted himself a little. The ladder is jumbled some by game. Maybe a lot. Game is inherently un-natural, unless someone is a natural, hence the term. That means it shakes up the natural order of things. You can’t deny that. Just because that isn’t the whole picture you so easily become dismissive? Most everyone here has intellectual integrity, but I am beginning to doubt yours. He who is without sin, etc. etc. glass houses.
@Black and German-
I wish I could cite it, so your doubt is valid until then, but I believe I picked up that factoid here, so maybe the original poster of it can provide a link. I should add, that it was late in the marraiges that the test was done, not early in them. Love fades is the point. The emotional/cognitive love of youth that is, the stuff that gives you butterflys in your stomach. There are other equally valid types of love. Thats been discussed here at some point.
Hope everyone has an okay Thanksgiving.
Here is an ‘oldie’ from the Internet:
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1886349
From the point of view of a Game practitioner, there is an Achilles Heel in too many MRA views.
Takes some time to explain, but its not too hard to understand, if one is willing to.
One of 2nd Wave’s feminism declared goals was to “destroy marriage”. That was never really tried by them, of course. If you take a good look, they didn’t not make one single move to prevent marriages, rather they did all they could to turn marriage into extortion.
In other words, the practical feminist agenda requires that marriages still happen, so women can get married, divorce in the short term, and have all the financial benefits of divorce.
The bulk of changes in marriage law in the past decades pointed to this direction.
Now, most anti feminists have a conservative perspective. The conservative view is positive towards marriage, in opposition to the liberal view that marriage is slavery – or a social restraint at better.
In that view, Players are acting in consonance with liberals the moment they abdicate marriage in favor of banging around casually (and therefore, seen as traitors of men).
The problem is: since feminism already turned marriage into a form of extortion, every man who refuses to abdicate his conservative prerogative and gets married, ends up feeding the monster.
I am positive about Players because they make the disease worse. With Game, men have more chance of getting his primal urges satisfied without the sanctification of extortion (marriage). In an exaggerated scenario, if less and less men commit, and more men opt to Game, the monster is no longer fed.
In such scenario, women are put in a position that requires them to negotiate with men for better marriage terms.
One thing never changed: women need security. The last changes in family law did it work of giving the maximum of security, with a minimum need of reciprocity. Any short marriage will give all the benefits. The kitten will turn into a shrew as soon as she gets you in the church, because all her security needs are met at that point.
Intransigent conservatism, or, insistence on marriage, does nothing to change the picture. It is not the Players that are feeding the liberal machine of extortion. It’s the romantic conservatives that won’t give up the old ways.
The first measure is to adapt your fighting strategies to the current reality. IF feminism profits from the tradition, the most logical attitude is to…? DUMP THAT SPECIFIC TRADITION.
It’s not new. Many MRAs talk about Marriage Strike. But for some reason, are still pissed off with Players. Why?
The answer is unpleasant.
A large number of them however preach against marriage hate Game because they sense Players “distract” women from “going back to the good old times”. This perception goes on as “women are fooled by feminism, and then seduced by Casanovas”.
Chivalrous, but silly rationale.
Before the current state of marriage, unattractive men would have long marriages because it wasn’t possible to have all the security if the woman in question divorced him. It was imperative for her to stick to her choice, or endure the cruel reality that every man faced since the dawn of time.
Marriage was a way to secure steady sex for average men who, in an open sex market, wouldn’t have it easy. Not the only reason, of course. But the stronger, since all the other reasons are not strong enough to persuade a man into marriage.
In the actual scenario, where marriage made the male presence expendable through alimony, every man is exposed to the cold reality of the open sex market.
Like a Worker’s Union, a good number of MRA see women as filthy capitalists, and Players like opportunistic stock brokers.
Ironically, game-hating-MRAs are the very ones that Game could help.
acksiom:
you’re being vague. i have no time for that; so i guess we just won’t work out. sorry it had to end like this.
“It’s not new. Many MRAs talk about Marriage Strike. But for some reason, are still pissed off with Players. Why?”
Many, but not all, maybe not even most. I would think most MRA’s at the spearhead are pro male choice, be it “Game”, ghosting, GTOW, fathers rights, Ex-pating, anti-feminism, so-cons, or a combination of these.
I personally support “Game” and incorporate what little I know about it into my own life as best I can. Game is tool. The MRA movement would be fool not to use it. How we use, and what we use it for, may differ some.
Game is a tool. Not game is tool. Totally different conontation.
The MRAs that are against Game is because of the ’stigma’ attached to it by it’s representatives, or the ambassadors rather. The ambassadors being the PUAs.
While a few lessons of the Game will be useful, and could definitely help one’s perspective in life. However, the ambassadors don’t mind making outrageous posts about their view points, and they don’t mind screwing another man over if he didn’t have ‘tight-game’ on his woman. Who would want to support it *IF* most or all the men wouldn’t mind using it to screw another man’s woman? The repercussions tend to be rather bloody in the end when the cat’s out of the bag.
It’s really a case of morals and ethics. It would be more beneficial if there are some codes or unwritten set of rules that would accompany Game. This way, competition can be encouraged without the risk of cuckoldry/men screwing over other men.
While all-spread cooperation may not be possible, getting a good deal to cooperate (while serving their self-interests) would be a good thing in the long-run.
Funny thing is, I’m expecting negative responses from this. Haha!
Paul:
“What I oppose with all my vigour is monogamous marriage. If you are married then you quickly come to the realisation that you would not mind being married one day a week. The rest you would want for yourself. You also realise very quickly that just having one partner is no solution at all to a man’s sexual needs. All this propaganda bout a man’s sex life in marriage is just so much hype and deception. The point I want to make very strongly indeed is not that women become indifferent to sex once married. It is that man just looses interest in having sex with the same woman constantly. This is especially true since that woman will by then be making your life an absolute misery. Why would you want to make love to a creature that you hate.”
David: No, that is going too far. I speak from over twenty years of married life. One woman is enough if you create variety. To put it crudely, you don’t have to change the meat if you vary the spice.
There is nothing as good as having a woman who spreads wide for you in the bedroom; puts breakfast at the head of the table for you in the morning; and irons your shirts while you watch TV on Sunday night. That is full service and devotion. That is what you get if you keep your nerve.
I think I must have been running game unconsciously for years. Now that I run it consciously as well, things should only get better.
Liberalism and feminism aren’t the enemy, they actually give you lots of choice. Women are free to sleep around and wear short skirts. By learning “game”, in other words having some minimal social competence, you can sleep with tons of women. In past societies you’d be with ONE woman from an early age with little or no choice in the matter. Feminism and liberalism has given men a golden age of pussy galore.
A point people should keep in mind, too, is that it used to be that men would fuck sluts and marry virgins, because there was prostitution or a few “loose women” around. I can’t see any logical reason why a man might not fuck sluts and still seek a virgin. If there are 100 men and 100 women in a village, 100 men can fuck the one slut, while 99 women stay virgins. One man gets to marry the slut and people laugh at him for the rest of his life.
Personally, I married a virgin because I didn’t want a girl who had had other men inside her.
I was never personally that interested in chasing skirt because I don’t find women that interesting as people. I did once screw a newly-married woman, cuckolding a friend in the process. Which goes to show that not all sluts are single.
@Jabherwochie
The nature/nurture debate is something I’ve spent considerable time and effort working on and reinterpreting, and so what we don’t accept now, I will be unable to explain in the course of a blog discussion.
If a man is without passion or drive, if he’s not successful at his job or if he does not have a cause to believe in or an ideal to fight for, then strictly speaking, he has failed in his role as a man. In this sense, game is important. Male sexuality is not the same as female sexuality. Central to male sexuality is the idea of respect. As Steve Moxon (author of The Women Racket) once said in an online discussion, men fall in love, women fall in respect. Women look up to men that they love, often in a way that is almost child-like. Women are attracted to the statement… what a man stands for – men in uniform, men in suits. A woman wants to be taken by a man who stands for something and to him she will submit. Without respect, whether it is the self-respect that comes from achievements and knowing that you are right, or the respect of others for what you know and what you’ve achieved, a man really has nothing else going for him. Nothing at all… he’s a sexless, useless, spent drone. So I suppose I agree with the fundamental principles of game, but rather than call it “game”, to imply a strategy for collecting sluts or making LTRelationships work, I think realizing man’s purpose – his true authentic self – is a much healthier, less selfish perspective. A man should not need a woman/women to bolster his purpose. A man with purpose, who makes a statement, will become much more attractive to women, but in this world view, women will not be the purpose of his “game”. His purpose is himself and his cause or career, what he believes in – for him, collecting women or love is not a part of his strategy. There’s nothing “sexy” about a man without the confidence and character essential to his purpose. And I suspect that the high divorce rate can be attributed to women losing interest in men who no longer live their purpose. Cads and PUA gamers can only be successful with women if they can manipulate the respect dimension of their presentation… their abilities, their sense of humour, their behaviour as alphas. My issue with “game” relates to the purpose behind it, rather than the reality of the male condition, which clearly we do agree on.
A PUA gamer has to ask himself about the sort of company he is choosing to keep, and whether or not he really wants to identify with the types of women that will, in all likelihood, provide him with his children (eventually). As for LTR gamers… “game” shouldn’t be a “strategy”. Let’s call it “growing up and realizing your purpose”. When you make women the purpose of your game, then your manhood is shallow, your true purpose will remain unrealized. And when you tire of the façade and are no longer able to sustain the illusion that attracts women, you are back to being a spent shell of a man with no statement to make.
I should add, that it was late in the marriages that the test was done, not early in them. Love fades is the point. The emotional/cognitive love of youth that is, the stuff that gives you butterflys in your stomach. There are other equally valid types of love.
Oh, but there’s the confusion. I meant the other kind. That kind of love doesn’t necessarily hinge on infatuation/romantic lovey-dovey stuff. I’ve seen that sort of love in couples that have passed their 30th anniversary and aren’t even having sex anymore. If anything, it grows over time. They sort of end up welded into a unit. They even start to look and speak alike.
I originally wrote a bunch of stuff here about men, suicide, and divorce but I deleted it as it’s just too depressing. You guys probably know the stats already, anyway. And who needs another anecdote to cry over?
Feminism and liberalism has given men a golden age of pussy galore.
Actually, it’s given some men a “golden age of pussy”, most are still with their one-woman method, and a large and growing number of men are voluntarily or involuntarily celibate (which I’d define as having sex less than once a year). The “pussy” used to be spread around more evenly.
call me old fashioned, but part of the reason we made it out of the trees was male competition for females…… =)
While we are discussing the intersection of Game & MRA, here is an NPR appeareance from the pioneer of that genre Tom Leykis recorded yesterday on the Patt Morrison show:
http://scpr.org/programs/patt-morrison/2009/11/23/whos-your-daddy-no-really-who/
He was a guest on the show.
Dave
I exceed your misery by 12 years.
Society, by definition, is an act of Cooperation between its members.
We have laws against harming others as proof of this fact of cooperation.
Taxes are an essential nature of cooperation, for common projects, military, etc…
Cooperation is the entire foundation of society, and civilization. The problem with Game, is that it falls into the unspoken aims of feminism… that being, to destroy civilization by destroying cooperation.
It’ll get you laid, this is true; but killing a farmer and taking his crops will feed you also.
There is a reason that these sort of behaviors were frowned upon by civilizations of the past. And this is because these sort of behaviors are antithetical to the very fabric of civilization as a whole.
If everyone steals, then who will produce?
If everyone Games, then who will raise the future?
In the short term, Game is a wonderful tool… just as speculative trading is a efficient way to get rich.
But without production, you are merely shuffling the existing seed stock around, all the while depleting it to keep you fed.
I have heard it said before, that you “Reap what you Sow” and I believe it.
-Edrick
“I’ve heard English is good for poetry because it has so many homonyms, so many grammatical contradictions, and also we’ve incorporated so many foreign words into our language, as well as having minority groups who invent words or find new uses for them, ie. a lot of slang. Basically, its such a mess, that there is a lot to play with.”
Not true. English is good for poetry because it has shorter words than the majority of languages. Having shorter words means that it is easier to fit them in a rythmic structure, because you have more possible combinations.
If you have a verse of eight syllables, and you have a language with long words (for examble, each word has four syllables, this is a simplification), you only can fit two words in this verse. If the verse has nine syllables, you cannot fit well the words and you have to recur to “tricks”.
If you have a language where words have one syllable, you can fit well any verse you have, regardless of the number of syllables. In general, the shorter the words are the easier composing poetry is (this is not my opinion: you can read it in books related to poetry)
It is why pop songs sound so well in English. The music and the lyrics adjust perfectly. In my native language, with longer words, you often have to twist the letter of the music in an unnatural way to make them fit.
That being said, I know four languages and English is the ugliest one. English is very convenient but very ugly. Please, don’t hate me for that, but it’s what I think.
“Not true. English is good for poetry because it has shorter words than the majority of languages. Having shorter words means that it is easier to fit them in a rythmic structure, because you have more possible combinations. ”
Interesting. I’m not sure that invalidates what I said, but it may be closer to the truth.
“That being said, I know four languages and English is the ugliest one. English is very convenient but very ugly. Please, don’t hate me for that, but it’s what I think.”
I did say it was a big mess. What is the prettiest one in your opinion? Just curious.
“Ok, so you belong to the “Yes, actually it WOULD kill me to admit I was wrong” camp. Thanks for establishing that quickly; I appreciate knowing right off that I can dismiss interaction with you as a waste of my time too.”
You’re an idiot and projecting. I admit when I am wrong, or when another idea is more valid then mine, or if I understand the other perspective but consider mine more valid still, all the time here. Dig through my old posts. I generally stick to my guns, but to not admit bias is a sure sign of bias. I’m hear to learn as much as share.
“A highlight for the rest of you reading this — she’s confusing “natural/unnatural” with “conscious/aconscious” there.”
I’m not confusing anything. Your trying to conflate our arguments into semantics. I meant “natural/unnatural”, thats why I said “natural/unnatural”. We all know what I meant. Am I really going to have to bring out a dictionary here. And leave your Freudian psycho babble at home. Game can be both conscious and unconscious, so I don’t even know what your getting at.
“Today this is most often seen as the classic enviroweenie mistake, where “natural/unnatural” are wrongfully conflated with “lacking/possessing human self-awareness”, but historically it comes from Kant’s nonsense (i.e. asserting, without proof, the existence of some magical kind of ultimate, perfect perception and then using that as the false grounds for invalidating actual empirical knowledge through it being flawed in comparison to that nonexistent ideal).”
I live and debate in a world of greys. Not black and white. (again, check all my posts) I was pointing out where chuck was right, even though not completely right. That is in the grey area of truth. You are just projecting again. Just because you call your evidence (“cough” opinion) empirical, does not make it so. I don’t believe in ideals or absolute truths. That is what I was pointing out to people who practice game and see it as a cure all. It is not a social panacea. It does not cure cancer and make blind babie see again. It is not the end all and be all of truth. It is not absolute. In the jargon of your “religion of game”, you’ve been Negged. Have I made your mental gina tingle yet.
I may not be Alpha in your world, but I am an Alpha Geek, and I will dance circles around your logic, even if forced to argue from an inferior position (which I’m not, so don’t take a stab at that one, it would be too easy). Would you like to dance? Better call Roissy to back you up. His attack dogs don’t seem to have much bite.
The jabberwocky has spoken.
And I’m a dude. How much game could you have? Do you hit on trani’s a lot by accident?
Anything Latin-based sounds the best but German is my favorite. Unfortunately, the words are very long. I don’t really like English very much.
@codebuster-
I agree with all you’re saying to an large extent. I just don’t have a problem with the path of least resistance in this case. I believe “game” would be sorta like a shortcut to all the hard work it would take to become a Alpha without it. It offers the accumulated knowledge and understanding of what makes a person Alpha, so no trial and error, or less trial and error is needed. I realize learning game is still a lot of work, and never perfected. As its been said before, “game” is like a knife, it can be used for good and bad, but I still think we should all know how to wield it.
French makes for very elegant song writing
“epiclolz November 24, 2009 at 8:45 pm
call me old fashioned, but part of the reason we made it out of the trees was male competition for females…… =)”
And cooperation and suppressing competition for females is what led us out of the villages and tribes into city-states and empires.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m pro-game. I’m just pro-game because it will help destroy the Matriarchy, not improve society.
I haven’t read the full comments section yet, but I’d like to make a quick comment on the original article.
The whole point of the original prisoner’s dilemma is that both sides prefer the state where both sides cooperate to the state where both sides confess. In the world of Game, however, this is by no means clear…if one or both sides would prefer to Game even if others are doing it, then there is no Pareto preference for the cooperative state. Absent that Pareto preference, the usual methods of preventing betrayal behavior (repeated games of unknown quantity) will be entirely ineffective.
Furthermore, even if you personally view the dating scene as being this sort of prisoner’s dilemma, that just means that your optimal strategy is “Tit-for-tat”; that is, mimic the behavior of your opponent from the previous round. But then it only takes a single player who always Games to eventually convert everyone (if everyone were following this model except that one player) to Gaming.
My point, ultimately, is this. Regardless of how you model dating, the fact that Game is rewarded overall means that it will be followed as a strategy. If you don’t like the existence and use of Game, you need to limit its effects…if it were rewarded less, it would be followed less.
I’m not sure you “got” the pareto-superior bit. What I mean is this:
Total amount of male happiness in the world is HIGHER with game than without it, although still unequality distributed.
I’d wager that non-gaming beta are no worse off. Women still won’t fuck them so nothing has changed. It was female emancipation that shut off the sex tap, not PUAs stealing their women.
The big winners are those who perform the B2A transformation, and thus go from rare sex with fugglies to consistent sex with hotties.
The thing I don’t understand about Game is: Why do you guys seem to assume that being “without Game” is man’s natural state and Game is something you have to learn? I’d argue the opposite: Masculine behavior (Game) is generally the natural state and those who don’t have it have usually lost it through socialization.
“Black&German November 25, 2009 at 11:13 am
The thing I don’t understand about Game is: Why do you guys seem to assume that being “without Game” is man’s natural state and Game is something you have to learn? I’d argue the opposite: Masculine behavior (Game) is generally the natural state and those who don’t have it have usually lost it through socialization.”
True and great point, but I, and many “NiceGuys” are genetically predisposed to be nice. Some people will have a lower threshold for stress or conflict. Plus, it seemed rational to me to treat people with respect and kindness. It no longer seems rational to me now, since I have been corrected by the school of hard knocks. But your point stands, we are socialized since Elementary school to be pussies.
Forget elementary school. More like birth.
I think you are equating masculine behavior with being an ass. You don’t have to act like Roissy to be masculine.
Masculine Behavior =/= Game
Though the two of them aren’t mutually exclusive.
I wish I could correct my posts:
*completely mutually exclusive.
An edit option would be really nice now. I screwed up twice.
*Though the two of them aren’t completely mutually exclusive.
I am fairly sure that most men naturally have “game”. I think I do myself. I am of the generation that remembers when male authority in the home was regarded as normal. Even in the 1970s, TV programs routinely portrayed women as readily submitting to men.
The culture has changed. I wrote elsewhere recently that even Reader’s Digest has gone feminist. It has. There was a recent article gloating about how many wives now claim they wear the pants. This would NEVER have been seen in Readers Digest once. The default assumption was male leadership.
Now men have to relearn “game” from each other. The culture won’t teach it.
My marriage has improved dramatically since I started applying these principles recently.
What really frightens the shit out of feminists is that men and women will rediscover the pleasure of traditional roles.
“Now men have to relearn “game” from each other. The culture won’t teach it.”
David, if such was the case, then maybe I could be wrong about my previous comment…
The term itself keeps morphing, but if PMAFT views it as ‘Effective Masculinity”, then I might have to pull back my previous statement.
It is easy for a married man like myself to apply “game” right away. I read a list of 10 ways to please your husband yesterday on the Internet. One of them referred to getting his briefcase in the morning. This morning I had occasion to want something in my briefcase so I SENT my wife to get it. She went.
Women (wives) are hard-wired to obey men (husbands). Not every time, but more often than not. If she doesn’t obey you, ignore it. Give her another command later. Eventually she will obey you.
Hmm… if this is the case, then maybe I should observe my parents a little better; they’ve been married for almost 30 years.
Women also tacitly obey men. For example, my wife has always done the laundry and the cooking, worked part-time a lot, and so on. Occasionally she has complained but I have held firm. That is ongoing submission on her part.
I believe my wife gets a buzz out of being ordered about sometimes, but oddly I think much of my success in keeping her in line has come from some elements of natural “game”. For example, I tend to be naturally a bit remote and keeping distance from one’s wife can draw her into your orbit. I picture it as a planet revolving around a sun. She should revolve around you, not vice versa.
Sometimes I see myself as the Baron and her as a servant girl; or as the Sun King and her as a chambermaid. Occasionally I have called her my laundrymaid or pantrymaid. This kind of mental roleplaying can work.
More and more I have come to believe that marriage is properly a hierarchial relationship, not an egalitarian one. If a man internalises that truth, he will have a happier and more agreeable wife.
Here are the problems that some men/MRA’s have with game, and remember, this is coming from a guy that has fucked numerous married and taken women.
The first problem is when guys discuss the use of game in their marriages. There exists a decent percentage of guys in the MRA world that are not interested in getting married, so you lose them right out of the box. On top of that, if what we are engaging in what is considered a marriage strike, then you guys are considered scabs for crossing the picket lines. Even worse, you insist on bragging about it. Which brings me to my next point. You gamers haven’t won until you’ve made it to your death bed without cupcake slapping you with a divorce and sending you to the poor house. How do those lyrics go? Oh yeah, “you never count your money, when you’re sittin’ at the table”….Talk to us about how you won the game when we all get to the great beyond. Not only that, are you sure you guys are really on top? How do we know that her shit tests aren’t being done on purpose to draw out your inner game, and thus keep her interested? Are we really sure who is reacting to who?
On to the single guys, myself included. I used to run game and chase skirt with women who were married or taken. A while back, someone came in here and posted how he could get another man’s woman, and he would never know it. His handbook was to pay very little attention to her and befriend the guy. Bingo!! That’s the best way to do it if you meet them at the same time. You come across as no threat to him, and she starts to wonder why you didn’t flirt with her. 2 for 2. Most of the time I didn’t even have to use this method, as the women were going out without their husbands/boyfriends knowledge.
Now on to the problem with this scenario, as it was addressed earlier. Do you guys really think that a guy who is single and has game gives a rats ass about you or your woman? Do you really think that someone in this position is gonna limit himself? Hello 80/20 rule. Trust me, a guy in this position will step a guy in the back to get some strange, and he views MRA’s as pussies, only not the kind he wants to fuck. To pretend that single guys with game are an ally to MRA’s is to be purely delusional.
If you guys want to win this war, you have to starve the beast, not feed it. What you guys are talking about here is feeding the beast by getting married, or engaging in the 80/20 rule.
Don’t act so stunned when you don’t get that standing ovation you are looking for.
I don’t care if my wife is doing shit tests to bring out my game. I enjoy being King of the Castle. I sit at the head of the table and my wife waits on me. She irons my shirts, cooks my meals, spreads her legs.
I was careful to marry a virgin. Deflowering her was messy but I am glad it was me. I used her anally before we were married, and occasionally afterwards, although I have stopped doing this for moral reasons.
She has borne me three children, taken my name and generally knows her place.
I have cuckolded another man, but I have always regretted it.
@Arthur
Best entry in a couple of days.
1.Starve the Beast/Marriage strike.
2.More ninja´s like Puma.Preferably anti-fem women.
3.Nuke any anti-male sites with mails.
@Jabherwochie well said. point taken.
The only problem I see with the civilization of our species is that it amplifies the benefit of being non-cooperative. It seems that you almost need to be in a meta state of civilized instability for cooperation to have the best payout for everyone. In today’s decadent world, the benefit of being non-cooperative is too high a tide to turn back. In a way we’ve probably gone full circle, getting out the trees, civilizing into city states, and then going back to a pre-city state scenario in terms of payout matrices. One of the readers on Roissy pointed out Philip K Dick’s short story the Golden Man. This is an interesting read as it is a cautionary tale that our intellectual growth and civilization escalates to a point where being feral wins out over the modern idea of civilization and advancement.
I have cuckolded another man, but I have always regretted it.
Before, or after you were married? When you say “cuckolded”, do you mean you got her pregnant, or just had sex with her?
Before I was married. I was in a college at a University and I got friendly with a newly-married couple. One thing led to another, there was alcohol involved, and I ended up fucking the young wife a couple of times. I have since wondered if she wasn’t shit-testing her husband, trying to get a male reaction.
I liked the man, but he was a bit of a wimp.
For example, I tend to be naturally a bit remote and keeping distance from one’s wife can draw her into your orbit. I picture it as a planet revolving around a sun. She should revolve around you, not vice versa.
This is good advice. My husband keeps distance with a dry, sardonic wit. For instance, I mentioned recently that married men live longer and he comes out with, “They don’t live longer, they just FEEL like they’re living longer.”
And he runs a tight ship and doesn’t let me nag or whine. Once a woman gets used to nagging her husband she starts to see him as another girlfriend instead of as her man.
And for those of you who don’t want to be married or even in a LTR: nobody’s making you. You say it’s a turn-off to hear about it, but it’s probably a turn-off for men who are married when they read posts questioning their sanity or intelligence for marrying. If they can deal with it, so can you. And the point is, they’re married now so they need to get along with their wives if they don’t want to end up divorced.
Actually that cuckolded husband was a very sad example. He was the only man I have ever known who let his wife drive the car. (Here in masculine Australia, the only excuse for this would be if the bloke had lost his driving licence).
She actually told people that she “wore the pants”.
I think she loved her husband but she really liked men. He was a nice bloke, in a similar academic field to mine, and I felt bad about what happened.
He did try to control her, rather half-heartedly. I do suspect she was hoping he would take charge but I think he was a pretty hopeless beta.
He peeked into my college room when his wife and I were “making out”, as you Americans say, and then came to my room and asked me why I had his wife’s skirt up. Farcical.
There was some interesting sociobiology in all this. I was slightly further along in my career, bigger physically, better looking.
David, your wife sounds like a lapdog. If her sort of docile obedience was the only alternative to the feminist-matriarchal society, I think many gamers and MRAs would be seriously reconsidering their options… and maybe conclude that there is no hope and shoot themselves.
codebuster
No, she is not a lapdog. She is actually very volatile.
My countrywoman Germaine Greer, of all people, wrote an interesting article on Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew. Her interpretation was that the play was about a volatile, high-strung woman being brought under control by a man who thought she was interesting and worth the effort.
That said, almost every American man seems to think there is something wrong with “docile obedience” in a woman. I don’t see it as problematic. Do you really want a goddam argument about every issue and decision in a marriage?
It is blindingly obvious that the current unsustainably high levels of divorce in the West are related to having a goddam argument about everything. A little docile obedience from wives might lower the divorce rate. The egalitarian model clearly doesn’t work.
The problem a lot of MGTOWers have with the “Game” community is not the practicing of “Game” itself, nor the Gameists alleged success with women. The problem is some of the bigots who can’t fathom the idea of men not wanting to bother with dating or marriage. We are told a man is failure if he is not loved by women. We are told that men have less worth than women. Yep, I won’t be singing “kumbaya” with any group selling that kool-aid. If you way is the natural way that men will pick by default, then you will won’t have to throw around the word “loser.”
Just to underline my point, egalitarian marriage doesn’t fucking work. The rise of egalitarian marriage has paralleled the increasing divorce rate. I know that correlation is not causation, but it sure looks like it in this case.
You American men are almost all sold on egalitarian marriage. But it can’t be made palatable by adding new ingredients. That’s because it is shit soup.
Somebody has to be the boss.
Let me just give a piece of advice to any young men looking for a docile wife. Don’t assume that the quiet little misses are the submissive type. In my experience, the reverse is the case. Look for the girl with a lot to say. She may well be the one looking for real male guidance in her life. It worked for me.
And then there are the MRAs/MGTOWs who think/thought old time marriage wasn’t a bad idea, but find the current litigical climate unacceptable.
Not pointing out who I am, just adding another slice to your spectrum.
David not me man.
I have no problem with “docile & obedient” women, hell many of the successful marriages I have seen follow this pattern.
If I wanted a UN style discussion about every decision I would go to the office to my co-workers not come home to my wife.
Your wife naturally seems to get off on being submissive so you are a lucky guy to have found her and popping a wife’s cherry may be unpleasent but it sure as hell gives you a pleasent feeling afterward knowing that you are most likely the only man to have ever been there (unless you are one of those abnormal freaks who get off on cuckold fantasies).
***
Agreed, 100%. I’ve said it before, the biggest benefit I’ve received since moving overseas is that I don’t see, don’t interact with and don’t speak to the problematic 1wF (1st World Female) and my life is all that more enriched and enjoyable because of it.
***
Agreed, 100%. Zero d!ick mileage = Zero psycho-sexual imprint.
My wife asked me a question the other day after hearing a typical bubblegum song on the radio.
She asked if “forbidden” love was the sweetest. (The context of the song being something about cheating, go figure.) It struck me as rather odd, until I put things into their proper perspective: context vs. content.
What do I mean?
That after experiencing the cesspool of such low-quality women in the Anglosphere, it never occurred to me that a reality other than that even existed. I could only fathom that question from my own context; a negative one at that. I think that is a glaring problem with many “MRAs” as well (which would be a great subject for a different missive, btw).
Not knowing that an alternate context exists forces them to fall back on the content of that necessary but flawed “Game” meme so many are beginning to parrot.
But I digress.
“That said, almost every American man seems to think there is something wrong with “docile obedience” in a woman. I don’t see it as problematic. Do you really want a goddam argument about every issue and decision in a marriage?”
It slips into a moral question. Because “egalitarian marriage” is perceived as being morally (not only politically) correct.
The next fold is: you shall not expect her to be submissive deliberately. She will not. Although she wants to be led, she will also test your authority.
There is not such thing as “spontaneous submission”. But theres nothing wrong about being leading and enforcing your dominance with a strong presence and personality.
This does add to stress in marriages, no doubt, but the divorce rate is really linked to the family law system. Specifically, in marriages with children, women know they will “win” the divorce because they are overwhelmingly likely to win sole custody, which means both control over their children and a massive wealth transfer subsidy from their ex-husband — even if she cheats on him or even cuckolds him, she can make him pay for the other guy’s baby. This incredibly lop-sided system is what drives the divorce rate. I do not think that marriages under the old regime were any “happier” in subjective terms, but they were more stable because divorce imposed real costs on both parties, and was not simply a windfall for women, as it is today. So while equalist marriages do have more stress in them, if the family law system still imposed high costs of divorce on both men and women, divorce would be much more rare.
Wanna know the real problem I have with game? It’s this. The success of game depends on two characteristics about women:
1) Their ignorance of the male condition. Women don’t understand men, and so they rely on superficial cues. “Cock and funny”, “success” cues, etc;
2) Women’s reliance on the cues as reality, with no inclination to probe deeper. One false move, one faux pas, and a guy is chucked into the garbage bin of has-beens by a pampered stranger who knows nothing about him and nor does she care.
But there is a third thing that bugs me about game, and Anakin Niceguy is pointing in the general direction. Outside of polite chit-chat and smalltalk, women do NOT make good conversationalists. They don’t talk politics, or astronomy, or religion. They don’t have any beliefs or any passions in anything at all – unless it concerns themselves (as feminism does). They don’t have opinions about anything other than their family if they’re married or how awful men are if they’re not. Their top priorities relate to measuring up to the opinions of others… especially their girl-friends. They self-indulgently wallow in compliments while denying reality.
Bottom line is, they have nothing that makes me want to keep talking to them. Sure, they’ll laugh at our stupid jokes, they’ll ask what we do, blah blah, but all this is strictly conditional on cues so superficial and transient that it just isn’t worth the bother. Apparently, gamers think that it is worth the bother. And these women eat it up. How stupid must they be? Gamers are constructing a structure and belief-system that has no place in my world-view, and yet this bs comes back to shape the characters and priorities of people that I have to interact with on a daily basis. I have to live with this shit.
Read some of the gamer sites. Some of the gamers remind me of guys that I had as buddies back in my gamer days (back before gamer methods were “strategized”), so I don’t actually have anything against them personally – indeed, some of my best buddies were maverick gamers. One part of me is grateful to today’s gamers… for systematizing something that I knew worked, but never fully understood. But there is no getting away from it. Women really are as malleable, controllable and predictable as these gamer strategists tell us they are. Which tells me that these women that fall for them are incredibly stupid. A “ten” in looks seems to coincide perfectly with a zero in brains.
There was a time men used to question why the prettiest women were so stupid. Let us remind ourselves that this question is as relevant today as it has ever been. We’ve lost sight of this conundrum, dismissing it as inconsistent with evolutionary theories, assuming that somehow looks was a sign of genetic superiority, etc. Why are the prettiest women so stupid? Because they allow themselves to self-indulgently wallow in the attention that men give them, and this isolates them from the need to deal with issues of reality. It really is that simple. The girl-child matures to adolescence, and then kicks into reverse as she reverts to a second childhood courtesy of the modern male’s fawning over her, which she self-indulgently interprets as reality… even though, in the evening, she takes her secret with her when she wipes off her make-up and mascara and resolves yet again to cut back on those calories that are beginning to form into cellulite on her thighs.
Let us remind ourselves… women have their own strategies that paint men to be just as stupid as they are. Those “tens” that men fawn over can be attributed mostly to presentation – paintwork and scaffolding – makeup and fashion. Remove the paintwork and scaffolding, and what you have left is a very ordinary creature with imperfect skin and blemishes – and if she hasn’t anything deeper to offer, she is as ordinary and as disposable as the has-beens that she routinely tosses aside without so much as a second thought. Do gamers really care to measure up to the arbitrary judgments of one so…. DUMB and SPOILED? Where’s their dignity? They might get laid, but… I would think so much less of myself if I had to rely on the opinions of children for my self-esteem. Pedophilia does not fit with my schema for developing self-esteem.
“egalitarian marriage doesn’t fucking work.”
This depends on how you define egalitarian. If, by egalitarian, you mean contemporary “feminist” marriages, then of course those marriages don’t work. But we here already know that feminism has nothing whatsoever to do with egalitarianism or equality.
@Codebuster
Thumbs up on all the above, and thanks!
- That needed to be said!!
codebuster November 26, 2009 at 6:54 am
“egalitarian marriage doesn’t fucking work.”
This depends on how you define egalitarian. If, by egalitarian, you mean contemporary “feminist” marriages, then of course those marriages don’t work. But we here already know that feminism has nothing whatsoever to do with egalitarianism or equality.
***
Agreed. I would go one step further and say that due to human biological and anthropological natures, the more successful marriages (both in the past and outside the clutches of EMF) forgo equality in favor of a more just power balance.
@ Black and German
I sure hope you are not telling me to shut up. That’s not gonna work. And I sure hope that you aren’t saying that guys here shouldn’t disagree with the gamers, because that sure as HELL ain’t gonna fly.
Take your shaming and condescention elsewhere, i’ll have none of it.
We are not gonna sit back and applaud like chimpanzees every time somebody posts something we disagree with in the name of “harmony”. Reread the points we are trying to make here.
Me–don’t brag about your marriage until you reach your deathbed without cupcake filing for divorce and sending you to the poor house.
Novaseeker–the current family laws suck and are too heavily weighted against men.
Codebuster–women are overgrown children, why should men put forth any effort to gain their approval?
These are all valid points. Points which will be raised every time some guy brags about his marriage or game.
You don’t like the back and forth volley? Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Let me just give a piece of advice to any young men looking for a docile wife. Don’t assume that the quiet little misses are the submissive type. In my experience, the reverse is the case. Look for the girl with a lot to say. She may well be the one looking for real male guidance in her life. It worked for me.
Same here. I’m hardly the meek and unassuming type. LOL. We’re so powerful and dominant in everyday life that it’s quite a relief to not have to be so at home. And if a man does manage to dominate us it’s quite impressive, and receives much respect. Most guys I dated tip-toed around me and were even a little afraid of me.
The next fold is: you shall not expect her to be submissive deliberately. She will not. Although she wants to be led, she will also test your authority.
Well… sort of. We’re submissive most of the time and some of us will put quite an effort into it. But we’ll still shit-test occasionally. Although it eventually turns into a flirtatious game. She makes a sarcastic comment and he smacks her on the butt and she giggles. Soon she’ll make the comment just to get the spanking. Women are weird like that. The spanking thing seems to be almost universal in the marriages I know. Wonder what to make of that.
The success of game depends on two characteristics about women:
1) Their ignorance of the male condition.
Ugh… no. I understand my husband very well. I can read him like a book. Men aren’t really that complicated. But I still react to his more masculine behavior. It’s instinctual.
They don’t talk politics, or astronomy, or religion. They don’t have any beliefs or any passions in anything at all – unless it concerns themselves (as feminism does). They don’t have opinions about anything other than their family if they’re married or how awful men are if they’re not.
Sounds like you spend time with some pretty boring women.
I would go one step further and say that due to human biological and anthropological natures, the more successful marriages (both in the past and outside the clutches of EMF) forgo equality in favor of a more just power balance.
I’m not sure about the differences between traditional and egalitarian marriages. Mine seems like it’s both. We have traditional roles but we help each other out a lot. Anybody know a good link?
Perhaps traditional works best if both people’s roles are accorded equal respect?
I sure hope you are not telling me to shut up.
Of course, I didn’t tell you to shut up. My point is that I don’t understand why some of you act like someone else’s marriage is an affront to your own dignity.
Divorce tends to be front-loaded so after about 10 years the rates decline rapidly. And truly, as long as you stay married long enough to successfully raise your children, you have pretty much won. At least in a reproductive sense.
I had another thought about divorce. Much early divorce is caused by fertility problems and childlessness. So perhaps we could go back to the old-time Germanic and Celtic traditions: make a formal and binding engagement with marriage contingent upon pregnancy.
Usually they had one or two years to get knocked up and if they didn’t manage it in that time he was free to leave and move on to greener, more fertile pastures (or stay, as he liked). Of course, they didn’t know it at the time but it’s often the man who is infertile so the arrangement benefited both.
@Black and German
More shaming language.
Disagreeing with someone doesn’t mean we consider their situation some sort of affront. Hell, you may as well have said “you’re just bitter because you can’t get laid”. Reading comprehension ain’t your strong suit, is it?
Us marriage strikers are not buying what you and the other married guys are selling.
Period.
No sale.
We have a right to post and disagree. We will continue to post and disagree every time this is brought up. I will continue to call you on your shaming language every time you use it. I will not back down from your bullshit. You will not change my mind, EVER. You now have a choice, you can quit now and accept the fact that the two sides disagree. Or you can continue with your bullshit shaming language and this thread will be reduced to you and I spewing hate at each other.
A little honesty about what really turns men and women on in a marriage will help too.
Interesting what you said, “Black&German”, about spanking. My wife likes to be spanked. Not all the time. But fairly regularly. I started spanking her before we were married and am still doing it today, over twenty years later.
I have probably spanked her about 100 times over the years.
It was one of the first things she wanted me to do with her. I still remember the powerful musty smell of her when I did it the first time. She must have been really turned on.
Sometimes it leads to sex. Sometimes not.
As a fairly traditional Catholic, I don’t accept the argument that egalitarian marriage is somehow “moral”. Hierarchy in marriage is the traditional teaching, with the headship of the husband. In the 1940s, the Pope of the day was telling husbands to show “firm command” and wives “docile obedience”. Recent teaching has stressed a more egalitarian model, but the husband remains the “head” of the wife. And the traditional teaching is clear: the wife should generally obey her husband.
For whatever reason, I believe that women are drawn to a model of obedience to a man they can respect.
It seems to me that there is nothing moral about an “egalitarian” marriage system that produces, as a practical result, contention and divorce.
My wife is not an easy woman to handle. But she does, I think, fundamentally respect me and is generally amenable to direction.
Black and German, and David, and those who liked your recent comments, would probably like http://www.takeninhand.com, which expands on those ideas in many ways.
lurker
The problem with “Taken in Hand” and “Loving Domestic Discipline” is that they are too structured and there is too much theory. My wife sometimes likes to be spanked. But we don’t want to be playing BDSM roles all the time. Real life intervenes.
I suspect that spanking is a kind of ritualised fucking and symbolic dominance. The danger is that it can replace actual fucking and dominance.
@David
Whatever you are talking about doesn’t apply to Taken in Hand more than to any other type of relationship.
If you want to get an accurate understanding, click on “overview” at the top of the homepage.
@David
P.S.
It is not Domestic Discipline or BDSM.
Spanking isn’t central or even necessary.
No structure or theory, or any BDSM rules and contracts.
Just discussions about how different couples have evolved this type of relationship organically, in their own way.
“Ugh… no. I understand my husband very well. I can read him like a book. Men aren’t really that complicated.”
No, I don’t accept this at all. You don’t understand your husband. You might empathize with him, communicate with him and perhaps even love him. But no person understands their opposite sex. You can’t unless you’ve lived the choices they’ve lived. For example, even the “career” women of today do not come closer to understanding men because they’ve not had to compete on the same terms as men do. Most women would not bother with careers if it were not for men handing them the soft options through affirmative action. And so for all their “career” realizations, women remain as oblivious to the nature of the male condition as they ever were – probably more so given that now, women don’t respect men.
Men inhabit the outside realm, and compete/cooperate with each other within it. When they return to family after a hard day’s work, that outside realm is a mystery to the kids. Family and mom, on the other hand, is associated with security and familiarity. It is for this reason that men are probably in a better position to understand women than the other way around.
I suspect that the most successful gamers are those who instinctively apply what they know of their mothers to their interactions with women. Almost every childless woman has within her a hokey mom-in-waiting yearning to be realized, and gamer strategies seem to resonate with the buttons that set mothers off. That’s my take on it, anyway.
Women don’t do game because they don’t have to. They can scheme, manipulate and position themselves to achieve desired objectives, but they don’t have to understand the other person. What women call “empathy” is just being “nice”. It doesn’t require real understanding of another person.
lurker
You may well be correct. It is a while since I read the Taken in Hand material.
But nothing I have read of this kind has helped as much in my marriage as simply being aware of the principles of why some things work with a woman and some things don’t.
I could write a list of do’s and don’ts but people are complicated and there is no infallible technique.
I suspect the best thing for a husband to do is to put himself in a role mentally that is conducive to the easy practice of dominance. This in itself will stop you from tending to wheedle, nag, bluster and so on; all of which bring out a woman’s contempt.
A practical example. I told my wife to make me a cup of tea last night. No way, she replied. Ten minutes later the tea was on my desk. This morning I told her to make me a coffee (not tea as usual). I got tea. Beats me why. Women are, if nothing else, changeable. No big deal. She’ll probably obey me next time.
Do be prepared for the no, followed by compliance. Moreover, sometimes I say something as a joke and she takes me seriously. I complained about dusty books on shelves recently, and said she should dust them in a french maid’s outfit. Just a joke, obviously, but the poor woman was fretting about dusting half an hour later.
I have seen a blogger refer to his shock at discovering that everything he had been told about women was untrue (recent post at The Man Who Was Thursday). I have always suspected that we were being systematically misled, from a few crucial observations, and from introspection, and that a lot of what we have been told culturally about what makes women tick really isn’t true. Nobody will dare speak the truth in public because he will be pilloried. This kind of forum is an exception, since it is friendly to men, and to the truth.
David
I agree with you.
“But nothing I have read of this kind has helped as much in my marriage as simply being aware of the principles of why some things work with a woman and some things don’t.”
That site is the first place where I learned about those principles.
lurker
I have had another look at that site. I don’t find it terribly helpful. The people there, including the women, are overthinking it. Their advice is conflicting and some of it strikes me as dangerous.
It’s simple from my perspective. I don’t want to feel henpecked at home. I don’t want to have to struggle with my wife. I don’t want to have fight to control her.
Maintaing the right frame of mind is key. Once you have made the internal decision, your attitude to your wife becomes clearer and firmer, and your behaviour naturally flows from that. In turn, she responds. It shouldn’t be hard or complicated or rely on tricks. The beauty of “game”, or whatever you want to call it, is that it allows the woman to find her own level and to comply willingly, and to explore her own feminine tendencies. If you get it right, she betrays herself. A woman’s weak point is her heart. If you win her heart, her mind and body will fall into line.
The way to win her heart is to be a man, in the traditional sense.
And it should be fun. Marriage as play. “Game”.
This thread is good because it helped me to understand the difference between MGTOW and MRA. Now I know that I am really a part of MGTOW not MRA. My problem with MRA’s is that they want me to try to make the world a better place. I am sympathetic but I don’t really care. What I am interested in doing is taking advantage of the world I am presented with. Plus one thing I have learned is that a fair world is really a shitty world for most people. Its downright communist. Let’s see do I really want one wife of average looks who will fade into an old hag and on top have to take care of bratty children
Or do I want my pick of women (PUA). Do I want large sums of cash (value investing). I exploit the system and I am happy to do it. I don’t want the system to change because it presents me with easy unearned advantages. Now many will that I am selfish. Guilty! And others will say but “what if everybody did what you do”. People always throw that argument at me. My response is simply: But they don’t. Most men don’t learn pua. Most people don’t know how to take advantage of the stock market. People are clueless and I don’t want them to become clueless. I prefer them ignorant.
I love this world. Ain’t it grand!
assman
I agree with some of your points. One thing I want to say, and have been meaning to, is that it seems to me that the essence of manhood is to dominate and control your own life. I too am sympathetic to the plight of other people, men as well as women, but I can only live my own life. Frankly, if a man is too stupid not to be pussified, that is his problem.
Nobody has a perfect life; nobody gets a great deal all the time; sometimes bad things happen. But you can always make the most of your situation. Men are meant to be resourceful. We are not meant to be whining about women.
Nobody makes a man marry a whore. Nobody makes a man become a “beta”. He allows it to happen to himself.
Here is my quick definition of success for a man: having a wife who irons your shirts.
I’ll tell a little story. I have a pretty female colleague who got promoted over me a few years ago. She’s a nice young mother, well educated and attractive. Since then she has gone on what Americans call The Mommy Track and for the last year or so she has been one of my subordinates. She reports to me in my office. Sometimes I feel a bit strange about this, but then I say to myself, “would you rather she had the office and you reported to her?”
My point is that a man should come out on top.
It is the essence of a man to get what he wants. What he personally prefers. We men are meant to be pragmatic. Certainly feminism has made it tough for us, but life has ALWAYS been tough for men. Healthy men work around feminism, and still have good lives.
My message to feminists will always be: I have a wife who irons my shirts in her bare feet, and there is not a thing you can do about it.
I was thinking about traditional versus egalitarian marriages and I think the main difference is context, not content. For instance, if I’m cooking dinner my husband will sometimes wander in and chop some onions for me while telling me something. When he’s done he’ll wander back out again after I’ve thanked him. Cooking is within my “realm” and he’ll occasionally help me out but it’s understood that he’s helping. Just as he’s helping if he watches the kids for an hour so that I can get my hair cut or get dressed. It’s clear to both of us that he’s doing me a favor and if it’s not convenient for him he’ll just say no. Sometimes he helps me clean the table and sometimes he just walks out of the room without comment. However he feels like.
When I was sick and in the hospital he took over the household chores until I came back. But as soon as I arrived it was: there’s a pile of laundry over there calling to you, the bathroom is gross, and the fridge is empty.
The same goes for him. It’s his job to provide for the family. Sometimes I bring in extra income or I might work if he’s between jobs or on disability or something. But that just means that I’m helping him fulfill his role, not that I’m taking it over. The roles are default.
In egalitarian marriages, the roles aren’t defined. Everything gets split 50/50 and everyone fights for the “most important” tasks. Everyone wants to be the provider but nobody wants to wash the dishes, everyone wants to mow the lawn but nobody wants to weed the vegetable garden, etc. Compromise is stressed and if none is found they either fight over it or just do whatever they want. In my house, we discuss where to go on vacation and if we can’t agree then we go where he wants. I know egalitarian couples that just gave up and take separate vacations. Compromise will only take you so far. Sooner or later someone has to make a decision.
That’s very true, B&G. I think that, as a practical matter, in many American marriages, the wife’s view prevails, even in “equality” marriages. I think this is also not unrelated to the divorce rate, really.
I read a book earlier this year called “You Still Don’t Understand” — it’s by a family therapist about the current state of male/female relationships. One point that he talked about at length was his experience that women in contemporary America seem to *own* relationship disputes, as in winning almost all the time in most LTRs and marriages. He speculates that it’s because women fear relationship conflict less than men, and are more tolerant of it than men are, whereas men just feel under attack and want the attack to end. I’d add to his speculation that I think the laws encourage men to be more passive in relationship conflicts because being dominant can be construed as being abusive — which is a bad thing to be considered to be if things ever hit the wall. He does note that women are not particularly happy that they dominate relationship conflict, but seem powerless to change the situation. He makes a few recommendations (mostly women not coming down so hard, being aware of the impact criticism from wife has on many men and so on), but I think at bottom the issue is that masculinity has been bled out of many men through schooling, environment, media and so on, and that the law as well encourages relationships to be, de facto, female led.
***
Great insight. Agreed 100%
I know that things may be different, and worse, for men in America compared with Australia, where I live. I think Australia is one of the most masculine of the developed Western countries of the Anglosphere (maybe Ireland or South Africa could compete). But I can’t believe that we don’t face some of the same challenges to masculinity from the media and culture. I just don’t feel that much under pressure. To me feminism is an irritant or a joke.
It has always seemed to me that the pressure is really on educated women, who must face the fact that their sex has only ever supported men as we built civilisation. The number of important inventions by females is tiny (kevlar, COBOL, um, er …) I saw a debate about the lack of women philosophers recently, with “manginas” trying to list important women philosophers (Anscombe – a minor Wittgensteinian; Iris Murdoch – a novelist, actually; um, er …)
I suspect every woman today knows this in her heart of hearts, and has to deal with it. Some become resentful.
I agree very much with Black & German about “context”. I have done various kinds of housework: e.g. vacuuming, quite a lot of child-minding. But it is in support of my wife. And my wife has followed her profession (librarian): sometimes part-time, sometimes full-time: and sometimes been a stay-at-home mum. But I have always been the main breadwinner.
And there are certain jobs I won’t do. I won’t do laundry. I won’t mop the floor. I won’t cook and serve a meal. These are women’s jobs, and I have told her in so many words that they are “beneath me”.
By all means help your wife, but don’t become the second maid. Do what feels right. If my wife attempts to tell me to put my dishes in the dishwasher, I may just put the dairy products in the fridge and walk upstairs. She can put the dishes away.
As I said, do what feels right. Your wife will most likely follow along behind. If you put most of your clothes in the laundry hamper, but forget one sock, she will probably pick it up. If she complains, tell her to shut up and leave the sock there. Eventually she will pick it up.
As I said on another forum recently, your wife doesn’t nag because you don’t do housework; she nags because you do. She doesn’t really want a pliant maid. And the only men who want to be maids are masochistic perverts. Make it clear to her that you will do housework when you feel like it. If she still flaps her gums, let her flap her gums.
Great comments!
I think what you write is funny sometimes, Dave, because it reminds me of life at my house. If my husband is helping me and I criticize him in any way he’ll just say, “Then do it yourself,” and walk off.
I tend to see feminism that way too, Dave. But America has a litigious culture that can give even crackpots an amazing amount of power.
One point that he talked about at length was his experience that women in contemporary America seem to *own* relationship disputes, as in winning almost all the time in most LTRs and marriages.
That’s because for women the relationship and “communication” (i.e. complaining) is more important than reality. So she’d rather spend 2 hours fighting over whose turn it is to do the dishes than spend 15 minutes cleaning them herself. Or she’d prefer to spend evening after evening discussing how run-down she is than to suck it up and just clean the damn bathroom. She gets more out of the yapping than the actual work.
Guys find the complaining a big PITA and will eventually just sigh, get up, and clean the bathroom for her. Unfortunately, this leads to her making the same scene the next week. And the week after that. But (as you point out) she’s still not happy about it. She’d actually feel much better if she’d just shut up and cleaned the bathroom herself.
I also sometimes wonder if some of the necessity for Game is linked to the collapse of the extended family. Yesterday I was all stressed out cooking and gave my kids food before my father. My mother immediately called me out on it. Once I was sarcastic to my husband at a family gathering and my aunt literally smacked me over the head, right in front of everybody. Or after I gave birth my female cousins started the, “Now you need to work on getting your figure back,” message. Even when I left home and moved to a different continent, my mother always steered me toward places where she had spies (friends and family) who could check up on me regularly and report back.
Or if I call my cousin to complain about something my husband did, she’ll put it back in perspective with, “Oh, men are like that. My husband does the same thing.” Or her dad, or her cousin, etc. It takes the drama out of the situation and brings it back to normal male-female misunderstanding.
From what I read, it seems like a lot of women aren’t getting that sort of “training” from other women and it’s pretty much left up to their husbands. Basically, men are training their women to be wives. From my experience, traditional marriages seem to cluster and those left out are stuck figuring it out on their own. That can’t be easy.
I got the fonts all wrong again. Sorry.
Yes, peer pressure helps wives. My mother-in-law is really excellent in this regard. She has helped keep my wife on the right track.
Thanks for fixing the fonts. I’ll remember to preview this time.
I was thinking about something else I read here (or in a similar thread) about female inventors. What many feminists forget to mention is that even those women who are famous for their inventions and discoveries usually did so in collaboration with male mentors (often their husbands or a male relative). That is not to sneer at their achievements but to point out an important difference: women tend to be the best assistants and collaborators but men are usually the best intellectual leaders. Marie Curie is a famous example. She didn’t really have such a brilliant idea. Rather, she took two man-created brilliant ideas that were lying around the laboratory and tried them out together and came up with something useful and game-changing.
Often the man will have the “big, original idea” and the women will grab that and run with it; expounding, expanding, and clarifying. Doing the “dirty work”, so to say. Men will often get so caught up in creating “big, original, ideas” that they don’t ever get around to implementing anything practical. I see this within my own family. My husband will often have a brilliant idea of how we can solve a problem but he needs my assistance to “flesh it out”, implement it, and maintain it. We feed off each other that way.
This difference goes back to hunter-gathering societies. Men spent much of their time discussing hunting techniques and improvements (big ideas) and then trying them out (experimenting) while women kept the home-fires going, supplied the hunters, maintained the food supply, etc. (help-meet)
It’s also obvious when one studies the intellectually gifted (those with an IQ over 130). In the 1940s they discovered that the majority of the high-IQ girls were ending up as homemakers or in “soft jobs” like teacher, business manager, childcare provider, bookkeeper, etc. The government was keen to create more engineers and scientists and decided to invest great sums of money in the math and science education of gifted young women. Their idea was to tap into this intellectual potential. After all, they thought, if a man and a woman are both equally talented in visual-spatial tasks, then the woman is only ending up a homemaker because she hasn’t been properly encouraged and trained. Well, the money was spent, the effort was made, and it was a flop. While the number of female engineers and scientists has climbed a bit, it’s still an overwhelmingly male field. And even those (such as I) that make it in, gradually move into administrative tasks within the development/academic departments. We end up the lab techs, quality assurance engineers (me), auditors, program managers, etc. I’ve worked in three different engineering companies and seen it over and over.
I simply see this as more evidence of God’s design for marriage: men are to be the leaders and women their help-meet. Education and training for women makes sense because it makes them a better and more valuable help-meet. Somebody has to tend the farm or run the shop while the leader is off starting his revolution. A leader cannot lead without a faithful assistant taking care of day-to-day business. The better and more competent his assistant, the more he will be freed to attend to his plans. People used to know that, which is why they said, “Behind every strong man is a strong woman.” Often when a leader or tradesman died it was his wife or daughter who took over his role. As his closest and most valuable assistant and supporter, she was best placed for this.
The problem is that this wisdom got thrown overboard and women wanted to be leaders, even if it didn’t fit their natural inclination. They had something to prove. So the home fires went out, the boys turned into delinquents and the girls into sluts, and everybody got fat.
B&G:
I’ll buy your generalizations, but is it too much to ask that you not forget Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, and the other female rulers throughout history? They weren’t all incompetents who needed men to make all their decisions for them. Plus as a mother, esp when dad is not around – you become the Dictator. Dictator in a way -when you think of it- That few political leaders have ever been able to match in terms of power. A loving Dictator is still a dictator. Maybe , in a way, that explains why more women throughout history have not tended to wish to rule : they ruled their families, or at least the children therein.
Anyway, if I have a daughter someday and she wants to become an astronaut or an astronomer I want her to have that choice -even if she is an outlier in terms of female interests. But the one thing I’d like her to remember is that if she goes into an all male or mostly male environment she should respect and play by the boy’s rules.
I was largely speaking about inventors and creators. Of course, there are women and men who are outliers and that is why I support equal-opportunity for all. Talent should not be wasted. But offering that opportunity does not change or invalidate the general pattern.
Indira Ghandi was taking over from the movement started by her father. From Wikipedia: “In the 1950s, she served her father unofficially as a personal assistant during his tenure as the first Prime Minister of India.” She is a good example of a woman taking over a man’s leadership after serving as his assistant.
So is Queen Elizabeth, another competent steward of her father’s policies. In fact, it could certainly be argued that Beth was much more competent than her father, but that is not unusual. Stewards are often more competent than the leader, who are sometimes egotistical and erratic. She also didn’t produce original ideas (like her father’s Anglican Church) but rather relied heavily on competent, male advisers. Her genius was to motivate these men to their best performance. Even her foreign policy was largely defensive.
Thatcher was also not a generator of original ideas but simply a competent steward and manager. She could think logically and clearly and knew a good idea when she saw one. And when she found a good idea she went about implementing it, damn the rest.
And, of course we’re not incompetent. That was my point and I certainly don’t see myself as incompetent or stupid. Our abilities are simply skewed in a different direction. We each have a talent and the world seems to run best in which each person utilizes their talent to greatest efficiency.
Clarence:
A further point is that you are are right about women running their homes. But that is because their men have recognized the competence of their stewardship and have delegated tasks respectively. Most men let their women raise and teach the children because they approve of how their wives do it. That is what I mean about the education of women. If your wife is a trained tax adviser, you would be a fool to do your own taxes. Rather, you’d delegate the task to your wife and then just go over the result with her. Similarly, I’m quite good managing the finances, so my husband asks me to do it and we just do a status-check once a month.
The more you can delegate to your wife (your help-meet, steward, and assistant), the more you are free to concentrate on your own core tasks: protect and provide.
Firstly, let me say that there are a lot of men being intelligent and thoughtful here. That is what men do well. They are puzzling out the solutions – whether to act independently or as a group – whether to engage with women or disengage.
I believe that there are core human tendencies, which differ for men and women. As Black&German has argued, there are outliers, but most men are made to protect and provide and most women to follow and support.
One thing I have learned over the years is that most of us are not exceptional. Most of us follow some fairly basic scripts as men and women, respectively. There is a lot of bad propaganda out there now and some bad laws. But there are laws of nature too that will eventually win out and force corrections. I think we are already seeing some corrections with changing male attitudes to marriage, and financial and trade realities forcing social change.
The existence of this kind of forum is surely part of the solution.
And there are also some women, like Black&German, who are showing the way from a woman’s perspective. You can use evolutionary arguments or theological arguments (or both, as I do) but I believe that they all point to traditional truths about men and women that can’t be denied for long.
That’s all well and good David, but is there no justice for the men who got steamrolled by the system?
B&G:
Thanks for the replies. I will now give them the attention they deserve
Your first reply finds me in full agreement.
Your second, not entirely.
For one, not every couple can do the SAHM thing. Sometimes that second income is extremely important. Thus, if such couples have kids they need either extended family, or a nanny or whatever the male equivalent is.
For two, I don’t think the average man is as inclined to care for a baby as the average woman. So it’s not like the guy is “being nice” and letting the “little woman” do something she is “ok” at. He probably has little interest in changind diapers or cooing silly songs and of course he doesn’t (unless he’s one man in a million with a rare condition) lactate. So when the kids are young, mama is better suited *on average* by temperment and training to raise them. Daddy usually loves to see them (except for the diaper changes and mid night wake up calls) and so father -child bonding does indeed take place in a healthy family. But his role in the childrens life will get more important when they get older after his wonderful wife has helped them to grow and develop into young little gents or ladies, when he will help model their behaviour and provide mommy with some important backup while representing the Male Role in things as opposed to mommys Female Role.
I guess what I’m saying is that women are better suited in general to care for young infants and children under say 7 or 8 by temperment and training, which is why they often make such excellent elementary teachers. So if a man values his children, he’s usually wise to let mom run things for awhile and when he does disagree, to take her opinions with very generous consideration. After all, she is with them most of the time, and only a fool would discount that she might have a reason for some thing he disagrees with.
Anyway, my point isn’t that men are dangerous or bad to children, it’s simply to say that most men are better suited at caring and spending time with the older ones just prior to and into their teen years. By the way, there was a British reality show that I heard of where the women switched places with the men and thus while the women went to the men’s jobs for three days or thereabouts the men had to take over the domestic duties.
The town didn’t burn down, and no kid died, though peanut butter made a mad comeback in the regions culinary overure
Clarence,
Good comment. But we don’t completely disagree.
I’m only interested in SAHM’s because they’re a bell-weather. An increase in SAHMs is a simple way of showing a shift away from the career-mindset. Most mothers aren’t SAHM and even those that are, aren’t so forever. The idea that some moms are SAHM and some are WOHM is a common fallacy. Most moms are both, just at different times. I myself am planning on going back to work eventually, I’m just enjoying the time at home now that they’re little. The largest group of moms are part-time workers, actually.
The most important aspect (as studies show) to maintain is that the husband is the primary breadwinner. Even if it’s the mother who WOHM and the father who works from home and watches the kids, his income should still make up at least 2/3. Anything under that and the family dynamics change for the worse. And then there are families who run businesses together (as was once common). In that case, the leadership role is largely psychological, but still important.
So it’s not like the guy is “being nice” and letting the “little woman” do something she is “ok” at.
Actually, he is. I know 2 families where the husband wasn’t happy with his wife’s raising of the children and in one case he put the kids in day-care and sent her to work and in another he started working from home and watched the kids himself. Sad, but true. Dads need to be careful because some women are incompetent mothers (I could tell you some major horror stories).
My own husband has contradicted me twice and been correct both times. Not everything is as natural as you assume.
I guess what I’m saying is that women are better suited in general to care for young infants and children under say 7 or 8 by temperament and training, which is why they often make such excellent elementary teachers.
If you change that to 5 or 6 and “preschool/kindy teachers”, I’d agree. I think most women make pretty dreadful teachers beyond kindergarten. At least the liberal, feminist ones (and what else is there?). We’re big homeschooling fans and our co-op has some great male and female teachers that we’re really looking forward to. But in most schools… nah.
For what it’s worth, my kids (both under 5) prefer their father over me. He’s more fun and interesting. I’m the better housekeeper but I’m dull as dishwater. When my husband is home my son, especially, trails around behind him, helps him on projects, goes everywhere with him. He idolizes his father and imitates him incessantly. I think even little boys need a lot of time with their dads. They have Saturday mornings to go do their “guy stuff” and they both seem to need that time free of the estrogen-soaked environment at home.
Re: the Brits. The first time I left the kids at home with my husband for a whole day I spent the day worrying and thinking the house would fall down while I was away. When I came home, the kids had been fed, bathed, and put to bed, the house was neat, and my husband was waiting with a pot of tea. I actually cried because I thought: they didn’t even miss me! LOL.
Of the many things off base in this article, this one takes the cake. And it reflects the perceptions of someone who hasn’t spent any significant time in MRA circles. It’s scary wrong.
While there are real misogynists that hang around MRM circles, there are very few, if any, of them that get anything done. I think the only real exception might be Dick Masters, who most MRA’s would not consider one of us. Most of the misogynists just make noise around forums, and that is where they stop and start because real misogyny is as corrupt as misandry but it doesn’t get the social props. It is just dead weight that has no real bearing in the MRM.
But where you really fall down in your observations is where you assert that criticizing Game is a product of misogyny. It is actually a product of enlightenment and maturity.
You can analyse and over analyse all y0u want, draw pie charts, calculate competition coefficients, and otherwise interpret human nature all you want, but the bottom line is that Game is chasing, and maintaining, pussy. And fixing your attentions on what you have to do to get it and keep it under control. And that can be explained to you in any high school locker room (getting it) or by any hetero man over 50 who managed to hang on to his balls(keeping it under control).
And the really funny thing is that all of this is accomplished by not giving a shit about getting pussy and not caring whether a woman capriciously approves of you after you are together. If you have to calculate or develop strategy on how to accomplish this, it is only because you don’t really get it as an internal part of your identity. It is quite simply faking it.
It isn’t misogyny to look a man in the eye and say “Hey, thinking with your dick, no matter how well hidden behind a facade of imagined control, is still thinking with your dick.” And it is precisely the power that feminists have used to maintain fraudulent agendas for a long, long time.
MRA’s that criticize Gamers are no different than MRA’s that criticize patriarchs, traditionalists, and, for that matter, feminists. All those groups are in the same biologically controlled paradigm.
The benefit I see to Game is it MIGHT be a somewhat effective tool to help younger men, who don’t have the experience or maturity to rise above their own biology and social programming, to so completely sexualize women that they don’t pose as much of an emotional threat as they otherwise might. If it keeps them from getting married, it can’t be all bad.
But the point of the MRM, as least as I see it, is about killing the obsession with women and sex. That means devoting our attentions to more important things than women, like single malt scotch. And whatever game is, it is all about women.
So is feminism.
Paul,
You don’t have the ability to say which MRAs are “real” and which aren’t. You’re falling prey to the true Scotsman fallacy as well. Men who call themselves MRAs and exhibit misogynistic behaviors exist. There are some on this site. Hell, I’ve even been guilty of automatically siding against a woman *just because she’s a woman*.
“And whatever game is, it is all about women.”
There is a difference between game being all about women (plural) and being all about a singular woman. Men don’t have to put the pussy on the pedestal if they seek and desire women. Its when they capitulate by putting the pussy of one woman on that pedestal that they falter. Men want, need, and desire women. However, they can have standards and principles that allow them to assert their masculinity. You try to make the argument that because game is all about women men are only thinking with their dicks. I say so what? We’ve always thought with our dicks. Properly applied Game funnels that dick thinking to productive ends. Rather than changing “thinking with our dicks” into “drinking scotch” we accept that we’ll think with our southern hemisphere but adopt standards, principles, and attitudes that make it a better situation for us.
And I never once said that criticism of Game is a product of misogyny. Most MRAs who dislike women just because they are women will probably dislike Game because it places value on women. But there are plenty of men who criticize Game for other more noble reasons. Criticizing Game because individual men get too wrapped up in the goal rather than themselves is a plausible argument, but it can’t impugn the whole practice.
Sure I do. Just like you can say they all fall into two camps, and which of those are misogynists. It’s all opinion here, sir. Just stating mine. And I think if you read my post thoroughly you should see that I acknowledged the misogynists exist, just that they were not potent or important.
One woman on a pedestal or a dozen women on a string, the fact is that women are still the center of all attention and energies. It’s still pussy-centric. And pussy centrism hasn’t exactly worked very well for men in modern times. It’s highly debatable that it ever has.
What Gamers are asserting is just the old paradigm under a new brand name. Game isn’t Game, it’s just the game. Old as my grandmas toes. It was simply called “playing the field” in years past and it didn’t require such trivial dissection, or the false elevation to an art form.
Some guys did it, some didn’t. No big whoop, just like now. And don’t get me wrong. I have no truck with any man who makes the pursuit of sex his primary pastime. But I do have issues when Gamers floating around in MRA circles that have little or no connection to the movement but take time to make awkward and uninformed assertions about the men in it.
I have read though a lot written by proponents of Game, and this is the first time I have said anything about it in any detail.
Now….
First we have this:
Then this:
OK, so you didn’t say it literally, but the inference is there, clearly enough. And I think personally this is where you shoot yourself in the foot. Rather where anyone who addresses “Game” as an affront to MRA’s. It is more clearly defined to me as MRA’s not having a great deal of respect for, and I say this euphemistically, “pussy hounds” more interested in notches on belts than on the sad state of affairs for men and boys. That isn’t anyones indited sexuality, but a snubbing of priorities.
As I read through your article again, it bring to mind a counter theory. Rather than misogynistic MRA’s shaming Gamers regarding their sexuality, is there perhaps the possibility that some Gamers may have a tendency to project hostilities on to MRA’s because they know the likelihood is that MRA’s see them as glorified pussy hounds, pursuing base impulses while MRA’s fight against the discriminations that have been enabled by that same pursuit to satisfy those impulses?
I am pretty sure I remember zed saying that older men are partially responsible for the development of this situation because we abandoned younger men, and ourselves, to the wave of gender feminism.
As always, I find a lot of merit in the mans thoughts. But I also have to say that I don’t think it is all that simple. What men continue to do, and that Gamers epitomize in this generation, is the same exact thing that men of my generation did. Forsake all and stay the course with pussy. And Gamers will have, unless they don’t procreate, a generation of young men behind them that will pay the same price.
Things are fucked for men right now because pussy is still power. Whether that power is manifest in men climbing over each other to provide for a woman for life doesn’t matter much. The power of pussy is in the obsession with it.
Common sense over ruling the penis is the only answer.
This is an interesting discussion.
So will you both admit to the genius of the patriarchal marriage system and why I consider it a building block of civilization:
1) It keeps biological mother and fathers together with their children.
2) It provides protection and provision for the woman and a help-meet for the man.
3) It provides a sensible moral hierarchy that leads each participant to submit to an acceptable standard of behavior: children submit to their mothers, wives submit to their husbands, husbands submit to God.
4) It assures men that the produce of their and their wife’s efforts will benefit their own progeny directly (through the household and inheritance).
5) It strengthens the connection between men and their communities.
And most importantly:
6) It provides a sexual outlet for each partner which frees them up to concentrate their mental and physical energies on achieving “higher” goals. Such as raising their children, creative endeavors, building an empire, etc.
This system is the reason that married men earn on average 30% more than their single counterparts. Now imagine how much more productive they could be if divorce laws were tightened up.
C’mon, you have to admit it. It works remarkably well when it works.
The only way that men and women can become highly productive is to enter one of two states:
1) Enter a marriage covenant where sex is generally regular and of decent quality.
2) Forgo sex completely and enter into voluntary celibacy.
Anything else, even cohabitation (which is inherently unstable), will regularly involve a change of partners and the refocus on your sex life.
I think it’s important for each person of each gender to understand the principles underlying Game so that they understand what drives and motivates the other sex. But just knowing the principles doesn’t mean that you have to employ Game techniques and tactics. Most of those promoted are of the sex-chasing variety, anyway.
@ Black&German
I think your list would be perfect if you corrected it. It needs to all be written in the past tense.
You can stick a fork in marriage and turn it over. It’s done. It is a great idea, and no doubt when functional was the one of the best institutions that the culture had going for it. But at this point it can’t be unfucked.
You got a way to prove me wrong on that and I am all ears.
@B&G-
I see the supreme wisdom of marraige as a sexual control system. It is still one that benefited women more in my opionion, and hugely, hugelybenifted women when marraiges were delayed later and later in life, and divorce was made easy. One problem I have with social conservatives (not you, I like you a lot) is that they still want marraige despite the delayed age of entering it and the easy availability of divorce. They want marriage because it is traditional, and they don’t rationalize it beyond this. They don’t understand its original purpose of channeling human sexuality for the benifit of society, they just think its God’s way or the traditional way, and they don’t realize that its original intent is completely corrupted when women don’t marry in their most prime years and divorce men whenever they want. Let me put it to you this way, if I’m expected to be faithful to my wife, even after menopause and when she is old and gray, I damn well want to enjoy her in her youthful bloom. So until marraige becomes an instituiton where men around the age of 20 marry women around the age of 16, and those women act in the traditional supportive and nuturing role of help-mate for life, and divorce is made impossible except for good reason, then the deal is off. So-cons want marraige in whatever form they can get it, and they don’t realize how ass backwards this is because they lack intellectual curiousity, and that marriage 2.0, modern marriage, just doesn’t cut it. Its like wanting kool-aide with poison in it, because kook-aide used to be safe and good tasting. They don’t realize the kool-aide is deadly now. They are reflexive and lack insight. They deserve the poison if they refuse to believe it is there.
With that said, I am married, but my deal with my wife is that she will always be the bread winner, while I pursue my bliss. Not only was this a thoroughly discussed agreement before I would marry her, I even talked about it in a general sense the first day we met. Women take care of me, I don’t take care of women. She also looked 16 when I met her and looks 20 now. She is 29. I took advantage of an ulikely situation, so agreed to make the sacrifice of marraige based upon our deal. She knows I am itching to bolt for any reason, and this keeps her on her best behavior. She knows I’m an MRA and what it is about. Most people won’t be so lucky, but after the shit I went through with women before I bumped into my wife, I deserve it and more. You can say that I controlled my relationship from day one through unintended game, as I was not aware of game at the time, I had just lost my respect and admiration for women. Through women breaking my heart time and time again, they provided me with the emotional remoteness that women seem drawn to and submit to. It is still not worth it however, despite how lucky I ended up. My life should not have been so painful. Torturing a man, but then giving him a million dollars afterward, will not do away with the mental scars of that trauma. It is rather a recipe for creating a monster. I am a monster now, to feminist and our contradictory, hypocritical feminized culture. The cats out of the bag. So-Cons can’t put it back. It’s time to kill the cat.
One problem I have with social conservatives (not you, I like you a lot)
That’s because I’m not a social conservative. There’s a difference. They’re looking back to the 1950s as the heyday. A lot of stuff has improved since then (like, my people no longer have to sit at the back of the bus) and I don’t want to turn back the clock. But we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. There’s some good stuff, not from the 1950s, but from the AD 50s. LOL.
If it makes you feel better, the so-cons don’t like me much, either. I hate their attempt to use the government to manipulate people’s lives; to take away their freedom of choice. The government is already doing that and you see how crap it ends up. I have a strong libertarian streak. Civil divorce is basically the government coming into someone’s marriage and messing it up.
My point is that if two people choose to be married and enter a covenant, then that’s it. They’re married till death do them part and they’d better suck it up and get along or that death will be a long time coming. I think a lot of modern marital problems stem from the impermanence of marriage: if you don’t think it’s really forever, what incentive do you have to change and improve yourself?
About marrying age: I was 23 (and I had many well-meaning people exclaim, “But you’re too young to marry! You are practically a child!”) and my husband had just turned 30 when we married. Two nights ago we were discussing divorce (other people’s) and I said, “Some guys dump their wives for a younger woman,” and my husband laughed and said, “That’s their first mistake. If they just married a young one from the beginning then she’d ALWAYS be younger.”
Paul Elam,
That’s where you’re wrong. When you take away one of civilization’s building blocks, the whole building eventually comes down. It’s just r…e…a…l…l…y… s…l…o…w…
Then someone else comes in, replaces the block, and builds a new civilization. It’s going to happen, the question is just: How long do we have to wait and who will it be? Or will the Second Coming be first? LOL.
@B&G-
There is no way to enforce your idealized version of marraige in today’s world. Marraige still works for plenty of people, but the risks are too huge to ignore. You should stop trying to encourage marriage, and instead focus on turning marriage back into its original form, or something that suits its original purpose. Your goal is the same, “marriage”, but your strategy will be different. Don’t encourage marriage to make people better life long mates, make marriage better to encourage people to mate life long.
I didn’t even mention that men want to marry a pure women, whether this is rational or fair or not, it just is the way it is. If marraige doesn’t take place sooner than 23 for women, which is a good age by todays standards, but not good enough in my book, the odds that your wife won’t have spent her most youthful and beautiful years with some drug dealer or dumb jocks penis in her twat is too low. Excuse my french.
I am working toward those goals and changing the laws. And my Catholic marriage does take that form. It’s just that it’s the only kind of marriage left that that’s like that and it’s not generally supported by the society around it.
I think 21 is pretty ideal. Old enough not to be stupid but still young and fertile.
I can accept that considering modern concerns and social complexity.
I was ready to get married much earlier (I’ve always been a very serious person) but it took me a while to figure out: older guys. Most of the guys my age weren’t anywhere near ready to be married.
Education is important, so we need to leave some time for that. And it’s not actually waiting until 21 that’s so hard. It’s waiting for some indefinite time and not knowing if there’s a chance it’s ever going to happen. That makes it easy to give up early.
@ B&G
I totally agree. I don’t think what most people realize is that movements like marriage, feminism, the MRM are all part of a very slow, lumbering body of social change. The don’t really make changes so much as reflect them.
I think we will get back to marriage some time after women have been stripped of enough entitlement and state sponsored bouncer/strong arm services to make them considerably less dangerous. The removal of all that crap will also, IMO, force them to recognize that they are better off partnering with men and treating them with a bit more respect.
How long will that take? Well, I have grandsons ages 5 and 4. I don’t expect that marriage will be a viable option for either.
I’m less pessimistic than you guys. That’s our central disconnect.
I feel the movement, I feel the movement…
Trust me. I hope you are right.
Jabherwochie:
” the emotional remoteness that women seem drawn to and submit to. ”
” I didn’t even mention that men want to marry a pure women, whether this is rational or fair or not, it just is the way it is. ”
Both true statements.
Of all the pussifications of the American man, the one that surprises me the most is his willingness to marry a non-virgin.
Of course I’m right. I’m always right. LOL. I wish.
Paul:
“And I think if you read my post thoroughly you should see that I acknowledged the misogynists exist, just that they were not potent or important.”
But what I’m saying is that you can’t say that some MRAs are actually MRAs and the ones you don’t agree with aren’t MRAs. They are all MRAs; some you agree with, some you don’t. I’m pointing out the ones I disagree with. You have to take the good with the bad. Somehow, we say that feminists behave a certain (usually negative way), when they try to say “oh well those aren’t *real* feminists” we call them on that. I’m merely calling men on the same thing.
“And pussy centrism hasn’t exactly worked very well for men in modern times. It’s highly debatable that it ever has. ”
Pussy centrism is the bane of our existence and the reason for it. In my piece I say that I feel anti-Gamers want to do away with the natural inclinations of men which involve competing against other men for women, but those inclinations aren’t always a bad thing.
“It was simply called “playing the field” in years past and it didn’t require such trivial dissection, or the false elevation to an art form.”
In today’s age, “playing the field” in the way you mean only serves naturals. If we aren’t going to marry a woman (why would we want to at this point) it would be nice to have some sexual companionship with a good-looking woman from time to time. Female hypergamy and government-as-*alpha*-provider means that so many men are priced out of the dating market. The paradigm has shifted, men have had to adopt Game to keep up with it. So, no, this Game isn’t as old as your grandma’s toes; its a completely different thing.
“It is more clearly defined to me as MRA’s not having a great deal of respect for, and I say this euphemistically, “pussy hounds” more interested in notches on belts than on the sad state of affairs for men and boys.”
I agree. Many MRAs think that us young’uns are acting irresponsibly. You are exactly right, it involves *no* misogyny. That’s why I said I wasn’t implying that all anti-Game MRAs are misogynistic. I’m speaking about the ones who dislike Game, not because of male behavior, but because every woman is a whore or is out to steal your money and therefore unworthy of our time. I’ve seen the term “Ameriskank” tossed around.
“The power of pussy is in the obsession with it.”
Pussy will always be powerful. Men will go into an uncontrollable frenzy for it. It is stronger earlier in life. As I said, men have to deal with this fact. We can make it easy on ourselves or hard on ourselves. The best way to handle it is to increase your options to prevent one-itis. Pussy power is strongest when it has a certain market cornered (one man willing to commit to it).
I think you assume from my article that I advocate doing anything at all to get a woman. There are absolutely proper ways to go about handling women. Learning Game prevents us from the inevitability of acting the fool and doing stupid things in the name of pussy. It depedestalizes pussy, but this also entails some extra competition against other men. It is necessary and good. Collusion with other men is untenable.
Hi Chuck,
We seem to be going in circles here. I’ll try again to clarify.
Here is what I actually said:
“While there are real misogynists that hang around MRM circles, there are very few, if any, of them that get anything done. I think the only real exception might be Dick Masters, who most MRA’s would not consider one of us. Most of the misogynists just make noise around forums, and that is where they stop and start because real misogyny is as corrupt as misandry but it doesn’t get the social props. It is just dead weight that has no real bearing in the MRM.”
So where in this is my proclamation of what is and isn’t an MRA? If anything I never said exactly that these men were or were not MRA’s, but only that they had no real power within the movement, and that most MRA’s would not consider men like Masters to be one. He doesn’t consider himself one either, BTW. And so I think it goes back to my first response. Even though I didn’t make the claim you allege, I can express an opinion on it, just as you can claim that those men ARE MRA’s, even without evidence that they embrace the label.
It’s circuitous and pointless to pursue this part any more.
Alas, agreement.
And again, Chuck, with all respect, this is the crux of the communication gap between us. I don’t disagree with anything you said there. In fact, I heartily agree with it. What I disagreed with and still do, most vehemently, is this:
And I found it especially objectionable when on the heels of my comments you claim that I, apparently unlike you, don’t have the ability to say what which MRA’s are real and which aren’t. By your very own words you are claiming just that ability.
But the core of this issue isn’t fruitless bickering about who said what. It is, IMO, a matter of experience and perspective. I would be happy to publish a good article defining and advocating Game on MND because it is relevant to the current state of men and masculinity. I have no issue with it in concept or practice.
But what I think that you are failing to consider is that men have long betrayed themselves with the forces that drive Game in the first place and that this is the chief enabler of female elitism, aka feminism.
I think it is pretty natural that MRA’s take a stern look at the forces that undermine them, regardless of what those forces are called in the modern lexicon. And since it is only recently that MRA’s have begun to quiet their railing about feminism and begin to look at male complicity in the sad state of affairs, you will likely see more MRA’s point the finger at Game and just say, “more of the problem.”
As in my “Letter to Men” posted here in the forum.
I think the way to counter that is to clarify your message that Game is actually a way of managing the male sex drive so that it is not destructive to men, rather than start tossing out words like misogynist and equating that with one of only two MRA camps.
You seemed aware of those sensitivities in your original piece. I just think you should have taken that awareness a big step further.
Pussy will always be powerful. Men will go into an uncontrollable frenzy for it. It is stronger earlier in life. As I said, men have to deal with this fact. We can make it easy on ourselves or hard on ourselves. The best way to handle it is to increase your options to prevent one-itis. Pussy power is strongest when it has a certain market cornered (one man willing to commit to it).
I had to comment on this because it sort of tells it all about why men will always be “chasing women” and women will always “be running” and controlling sex.
You guys are STILL handing women the ultimate weapon in exactly that: being obsessed with pussy. There are a lot of these silly “man-groups” that talk about the “horsemen” (LR laughs uncontrollably) and all these weapons against women. Sadly, these all involve sex.
Once again, men seem to have not caught on that as long as you are all obsessing about, blogging about, having conventions and classes about, and actually becoming violent and crazy over PUSSY and sex, you will continue to give women the upperhand.
Sort of like the smugness about how “women will learn their lesson” when sexbots are the “norm” (laughs uncontrollably again). Just for an example…..I think that sexbots and legalizing prostitution is a GREAT idea because as women we can have sex whenever and with virtually whomever we want to, JUST by showing up and looking half decent.
It’s not a “myth” about women. We don’t care about sex, we like it…..but it’s something easily attainable and we don’t even really think about it unless it’s actually happening right then and there. Men cannot fathom this because they are completely the opposite by nature.
The day men learn to control themselves, NOT care whether or not they get laid, and just do their own thing (like women do) THEN you will have an effective “weapon” against the female gender.
Until that day, the fact that these many Game Blogs, PUA Communities, and other silliness exist……is proof that women still hold all the cards.
PUA’s aren’t “empowering” men. They are just teaching them to wipe EACHOTHER out…..grab the scraps left over from the Alpha before you…..and try to “get laid” as much as possible. Men’s desire for sex and sexual gratification is their biggest weakness as a gender and also against themselves. Game just makes men less evolved, less motivated, and more “cock-driven” toward defeat.
Game gives men what they want sexually, and gives women what they want sexually. Unfortunately, what men and women who enjoy the fruits of game want sexually is hypergamey. Hypergamey is hard to sustain in a culture, as too many men will be left out. Even if everyone learns game, the ones weakest at game will opt out of the system. The system won’t be able to sustain itself, not in its current robust form at least. Remember that gamers benefit from it being a niche culture. I’m really suprised the info is guarded and secretive in fact, but the egos involved I guess just get too big. Their may be some benevolence in teaching it to others, but I digress. In a world were game becomes the dominant social paradigm, some men may go their own way, ghost, expatriate, or even go more extreme, and become serial rapists. But there will be two types of men in the general sense, Alpha Gamers, and men who no longer care. Why do I support this eventual outcome? Because we need to give western culture an enema, and game is the perfect tool for that. Only when shit gets so bad will everyone, not just MRAs, notice the pendulum has swung too far, and will be forced to do something about it. I don’t knock someone for pursuing a hedonistic lifestyle, as freedom first, but don’t knock me when I point out the dangers and downside of such lifestyle, if not to the individual, then to the people around him. Everything is about balance. Does game run your life to enhance you, or do you run game to enhance your life? If you use game as a tool that you know can be used for good or bad, lets think of it as a loaded gun, you must accept that when everyone starts running around with loaded guns all the time, there is the potential for a bloodbath, and the last man standing will be the one intelligent enough to bring body armor. I’m ready for the bloodbath. The MRA’s will be wearing the appropriate body armor, and after the field has been culled, we will decide the new paradigm for male/female relationships, whether women and gamers will accept that or not. Remember, the problem with being an Alpha in a tribe, is that the Betas always outnumber you, and as people more inclined to work together, will have an easy enough time working together to bring the Alpha down. That is, if the Alpha goes too far. So my question is, how far are PUA gamers willing to go? All the way were marraige no longer exists, every male is born a bastard, every female has an STD, and half the population without the skills to bullshit and play psychological games decide they’ve had enough, and either exert their power in more primalistic ways, or become dead weight to a society and culture that has abondend them?
I respect Gamers, I expect gamers to respect me. I don’t see what the problem is.
“I’m really suprised the info ISN’T guarded and secretive in fact, but the egos involved I guess just get too big”
Lady Raine:
“Game just makes men less evolved, less motivated, and more “cock-driven” toward defeat.”
wrong. First off, the notion of “less evolved” is a non-possibility. we are equally evolved, some behave in different ways than others.
but, yes, men are cock-driven. they are that way *without* Game. PUA types who go out every night just to get women are a completely different animal than the one I’m talking about. Game attempts to increase options to decrease the value placed on any given woman. Value placed on other women is a true weapon against other women. it is virtually the same as “not caring” and being “nonchalant” that you are saying is men’s only plausible strategy against female pussy power.
as i said to paul elam, men’s nature is to chase tail; given that we can’t really do much about that desire, we might as well adopt knowledge, behavior, and strategies that make it easier on us. it still gives women – as a whole – power, but it aids the man because it doesn’t give a particular woman his complete devotion. this is the key.